Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 116

Thread: Eldorian and Mistwell argue about religion.

  1. #16
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,013

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldorian View Post
    You keep saying that, but repeating it doesn't make you in the "mainstream".

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+atheism

    http://www.atheists.org/activism/res...hat-is-atheism

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

    Hint, though: it's really difficult to convince other people when you insist you know they believe something based on your definitions instead of what they (and dictionaries) say.
    Yes, you quote things that disagree with your statement that not believing in a god is atheism. That' is incorrect by your links. It's disbelieving in a god -- ie actively denying that a god exists, that is atheism. Just not believing, as agnostics do, does rise to the level, but I recall you've made that argument that it does based on the 'not believing = atheism' bit.

    Also, you're being quite the dick with the lmgtfy link. I'm not being insulting, I'd ask for the same in return.

 

  • #17
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,013

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Vigilance View Post
    So, Creationists are now demanding equal time on Cosmos.

    Tyson's response is predictably awesome.



    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5009234.html
    That can be a bad position, as it relies on consensus, which isn't science. I can see not wanting to share time with completely debunked ideas, like Young Earth Creationists, or Sky Dragons, or Flat Earthers, but arguing from consensus is generally not-scientific. I point this out because you say:

    Quote Originally Posted by Vigilance View Post
    And creationists also have a problem with Cosmos talking about comets, and specifically the Oort Cloud.

    Cause, you know, they're older than the universe is supposed to be.
    This is only a problem for Young Earth Creationists, which are not all, or even (I think) most, Creationists. The Pope, for instance, is a creationist who doesn't have a problem with the Oort cloud. That should mean that the majority Christian believers also don't have a problem, and are still likely Creationists.

    This is one problem with binning people's beliefs by the most easily dismissed.

    There's also an awesome podcast linked in the article where Tyson explains why he doesn't argue with science deniers, like climate change folks and creationist whackos.
    And here's another. If NDT is talking about SkyDragons, I'm with him -- I don't debate those loons. However, they're a vanishing small (if overly loud) section of the group often called 'deniers'. Which applies to them, they tend to deny basic thermodynamics. However, that term also gets applied to people like Roger Pielke Jr., who clearly states he trusts the science of AGW, thinks it's serious, recommends a carbon tax, but is called a denier because he also does research that shows that there's no identifiable signal of AGW in weather extremes and weather damages. So it's ridiculous to say 'I don't debate climate change deniers' because that term is political and not scientific.

    I think less of NDT when he says things like this. It's political tribalism, not science. Stating specific views he wouldn't engage in instead of using overly broad and poltiicized labels would be what I would prefer (I don't debate YEC, or SkyDragons, etc.). Not that NDT has any need whatsoever to listen or care what I say.

  • #18
    can't be bothered Eldorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Province
    US
    Oratio
    4,996

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    actively denying that a god exists, that is atheism.
    You can keep saying that, but my let me google that for you clearly showed you that you're wrong, by "mainstream" definitions of atheism. You don't have the one true definition of atheism. Me, I'm perfectly happy to recognize that there are varieties of irreligion, and the best definition for atheism is simply not a theist. It's what the word means by construction, is a generally accepted definition, including being the definition most often used by self proclaimed atheists, as far as I can tell, and there are no competing words for that category in wide use.

    You don't even know what agnostic means. Agnosticism isn't about belief; it's about knowledge. There is even a such thing as agnostic theism. And you leave me no choice but to be a dick about it, as it's obvious that this conversation is fruitless other than as a means to amuse me. It's like you see that there's a page on wikipedia on atheism, and latch on to the second sentence (minus a prepositional phrase) and ignore every other.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+agnosticism

    P.S. I'm also an agnostic.

  • #19
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,013

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldorian View Post
    You can keep saying that, but my let me google that for you clearly showed you that you're wrong, by "mainstream" definitions of atheism. You don't have the one true definition of atheism. Me, I'm perfectly happy to recognize that there are varieties of irreligion, and the best definition for atheism is simply not a theist. It's what the word means by construction, is a generally accepted definition, including being the definition most often used by self proclaimed atheists, as far as I can tell, and there are no competing words for that category in wide use.

    You don't even know what agnostic means. Agnosticism isn't about belief; it's about knowledge. There is even a such thing as agnostic theism. And you leave me no choice but to be a dick about it, as it's obvious that this conversation is fruitless other than as a means to amuse me. It's like you see that there's a page on wikipedia on atheism, and latch on to the second sentence (minus a prepositional phrase) and ignore every other.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+agnosticism

    P.S. I'm also an agnostic.
    One of your links it to American Atheism, which is a proslyetizing advocacy organization for atheism. Of course they define the term as broadly as possible to convince people to join them (or, at least, not oppose them). They're also in the 'new atheists' crowd. Your next two links (dictionary and wiki) both agree with me, not you, as the first says 'disbelief', which is not lack of believe but believing that the phenomenon doesn't exist, and 'rejection of belief' which is even more strongly worded. Even your sources disagree with you by half (I'm giving you the lmgtfy, as I'm not bothering with it).

    As for agnosticism, you're engaging in the same debate. Even your link (I'm assuming it goes to wiki, as most 'what ares' do; I'm, again, not looking at a lmgtfy) says that agnosticism is, and I shall quote:
    ...an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve.
    That seems to put paid to your argument. Yes, I know the drill about hard, soft, atheist, theist, and other 'types' of agnosticism, but we're talking mainstream use here, not niche philosphical arguments. Agnosticism, in common parlance, is clearly inbetween theists, who believe, and atheists, who disbelieve, in deities. That you claim the title for yourself is part of the proselytizing nature of new atheists, of which I believe you to be as your posts are lockstep with many of their arguments.

    As for being a dick, you're being a dick because you choose to be. To suggest that disagreement gives you cause to be a dick is an excuse to hide the fact that you're just enjoying being a dick. Be honest with yourself, man, because none of us are fooled (I think, perhaps some reader is).

  • #20
    can't be bothered Eldorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Province
    US
    Oratio
    4,996

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    One of your links it to American Atheism, which is a proslyetizing advocacy organization for atheism. Of course they define the term as broadly as possible to convince people to join them (or, at least, not oppose them). They're also in the 'new atheists' crowd. Your next two links (dictionary and wiki) both agree with me, not you, as the first says 'disbelief', which is not lack of believe but believing that the phenomenon doesn't exist, and 'rejection of belief' which is even more strongly worded. Even your sources disagree with you by half (I'm giving you the lmgtfy, as I'm not bothering with it).

    As for agnosticism, you're engaging in the same debate. Even your link (I'm assuming it goes to wiki, as most 'what ares' do; I'm, again, not looking at a lmgtfy) says that agnosticism is, and I shall quote:

    That seems to put paid to your argument. Yes, I know the drill about hard, soft, atheist, theist, and other 'types' of agnosticism, but we're talking mainstream use here, not niche philosphical arguments. Agnosticism, in common parlance, is clearly inbetween theists, who believe, and atheists, who disbelieve, in deities. That you claim the title for yourself is part of the proselytizing nature of new atheists, of which I believe you to be as your posts are lockstep with many of their arguments.

    As for being a dick, you're being a dick because you choose to be. To suggest that disagreement gives you cause to be a dick is an excuse to hide the fact that you're just enjoying being a dick. Be honest with yourself, man, because none of us are fooled (I think, perhaps some reader is).
    I challenge you to define "disbelieve".

    And P.S. You're not disagreeing with me, you're playing a definition game where I use precise definitions as used in philosophical debate and by people who claim the label, and you use "common parlance". Dr. Tyson certainly knew wtf agnosticism is when he spoke about it in the Big Think video.

  • #21
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,365

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    Indeed, in Judaism, it's technically easier to go to "heaven" as a non-Jew (because you don't have the added burden of being one of the Chosen people, which is actually more of a curse than benefit in many respects).
    Quote Originally Posted by Enkhidu View Post
    I think you misunderstood Misty's statement there. Judaism is based on the premise that the Jews are a chosen people, who have to live by different rules than everyone else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldorian View Post
    I think Mistwell was avoiding saying that in particular. I don't think it scores the jews any points.
    You're an idiot.

    As for "reluctance to perform interfaith marriages", uh...I'm in one dummy, performed by my Rabbi (my wife is a jack-Mormon who considers herself an Americanized Buddhist). Only the Orthodox have an issue with it (and only 10% of American Jews consider themselves Orthodox, and 47% of all American Jews are in interfaith marriages).

    And even with the Orthodox, it seems to mostly go like this, "Oy so many of us were killed during the Holocaust, how can you marry outside the faith and risk our numbers shrinking further, don't you maybe want to try and convert her or find a nice Jewish girl, eh? You should meet my niece Ethel, she makes the tastiest hamantash cookies." There is no real religiously-based rule against interfaith marriage, and any reluctance is generally based on social and political issues coming from the culture of Judaism.

    Are there ridiculous parts of my religion? Yes. But it works for me, which is why I stick with it. I don't need perfection from my religion, and my religion doesn't expect itself to be perfect. Which is why the word Israel, in Hebrew, translates to "Struggle with God".

    Fun trivia note, "Islam", in Arabic, means "Submission to God". Interesting contrast in two religions that both start with essentially the same dude (Abraham).
    Last edited by Mistwell; March 27th, 2014 at 05:49 PM.
    I like hats.

  • #22
    Cockface! Turjan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Vienna
    Oratio
    5,859

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    That seems to put paid to your argument. Yes, I know the drill about hard, soft, atheist, theist, and other 'types' of agnosticism, but we're talking mainstream use here, not niche philosphical arguments. Agnosticism, in common parlance, is clearly inbetween theists, who believe, and atheists, who disbelieve, in deities.
    In principle, you both have a point. Eldorian's definition is correct, and agnosticism is for the most part just a subset of atheism, which means you don't believe in a god. Whether you positively believe he doesn't exist or don't know whether he exists is a semantic distinction that doesn't matter, as "don't believe he exists" doesn't mean anything else than "don't know whether he exists because lack of evidence". That's just a simple scientific view point.

    But, as I said, you have a point here, as, unfortunately, the American debate regarding this subject has been conquered by Creationists who managed to re-define the term atheist to "definitely knows that God doesn't exist", so they can say that being an atheist is at least as crazy as believing in a sky daddy with a big beard. Good on them. You are as stupid as us, har har (just contrasting the intended effect vs. the actual effect here; I generally don't berate believers, as long as they don't take their belief as excuse to force some obvious factual stupidities on me, like that Earth is only 6000 years old).

    So Tyson would be termed an atheist everywhere else, but I can understand that he wants to avoid that label like the devil the holy water, so the agnosticism label is suited much better for someone in the US nowadays, even if it basically means the same thing as atheism in most cases (the only exception are those agnostics that don't know which God to believe in).
    Last edited by Turjan; March 30th, 2014 at 12:13 PM.

  • #23
    Religipster Enkhidu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Dayton
    Oratio
    7,096

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Turjan View Post
    ...But, as I said, you have a point here, as, unfortunately, the American debate regarding this subject has been conquered by Creationists who managed to re-define the term atheist to "definitely knows that God doesn't exist", so they can say that being an atheist is at least as crazy as believing in a sky daddy with a big beard. Good on them. You are as stupid as us, har har...
    I think the aggressive atheist movement is as responsible as the creationist movement for that shift. Eldorian used the term "anti-theist" above, and I think that's a good description. So while I do think the creationists started the whole ball rolling (in order top claim that a level of faith was required for any belief set that took on the beginning of the universe and the existence of god, even a lack of existence), the anti-theists (who publicly identify as atheists) who challenged them ended up acting just like the fundamentals that make up the bulk of the creationist faction.

  • #24
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    Kekistan
    Oratio
    29,571

    Ignore User
    Fuck both sides of this 'debate'. No one gets to tell me what I Unbelieve in.

  • #25
    Stage Name: Jackie! COMMUNITY SUPPORTER Nerfherder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Nordschleife, Nürburgring
    Oratio
    23,648

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    Fuck both sides of this 'debate'. No one gets to tell me what I Unbelieve in.
    You a-unicorn-ists are as bad as the people who believe in unicorns!
    Robin Williams: "In England, if you commit a crime, the police don't have a gun and you don't have a gun. If you commit a crime, the police will say, 'Stop, or I'll say stop again.'"

    PWD: "you're the seed, the relationship is the soil, and the love and attention and work you put into the relationship is the sun and the rain that feeds it. What grows from that is what you always were meant to become."

  • #26
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    Kekistan
    Oratio
    29,571

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerfherder View Post
    You a-unicorn-ists are as bad as the people who believe in unicorns!
    I don't believe in fear. I don't believe in faith. I don't believe in anything I can't break...

  • #27
    can't be bothered Eldorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Province
    US
    Oratio
    4,996

    Ignore User
    An interesting point about the New Atheism movement (which is better defined as an anti-theism movement) that maybe isn't widely known: Sam Harris basically started the movement as a response to the religious motivations of the 9-11 terrorists. It's not some fight against Christian creationists, but instead an argument that religion is both wrong and causes suffering. Opposition to creationism is just something widely reported on, mostly because creationists are so vocal and so obviously wrong.

    And Mistwell, you keep misunderstanding me. I don't have much of a problem with AMERICAN Jews (certainly better than evangelical christians or muslims). I'd be perfectly happy if there were more, even. In fact, as I've said before, I'd rather all the ashkenazim had moved to the US instead of the middle east. Yall could live in, I dunno, Arizona, like the Mormons have Utah. It's also a desert hell hole so it'd be just like home!

    I take that back; Arizona is really pretty. Also, you can live wherever the hell you want; just don't expect Jewish elected officials unless you all live in some sparsely populated state. Stupid regional political system.

  • #28
    Religipster Enkhidu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Dayton
    Oratio
    7,096

    Ignore User
    It occurs to me that we could interchange atheist/anti-theist for muslim/wahabi or christian/member-of-Phelp's-church and be having almost the same conversation with different participants and sides.

  • #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Enkhidu View Post
    It occurs to me that we could interchange atheist/anti-theist for muslim/wahabi or christian/member-of-Phelp's-church and be having almost the same conversation with different participants and sides.

    Except only one of those speaks the troof!!!1!

  • #30
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    Kekistan
    Oratio
    29,571

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Halo View Post
    Except only one of those speaks the troof!!!1!
    Ehhhh.... which one? They both seem pretty fucking whacky to me.

  • Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

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