Author Topic: Atheism and the USA, followup  (Read 9390 times)

Offline Hap

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #390 on: May 24, 2006, 04:30:53 PM »
Sim, ty.  Wasn't thinking of St. Augustine at the time.  He does rock though!!  I recollect reading the "Confessions" or parts thereof and just tossing it aside 4 years ago and denoucing it categorically.

I was home alone at the time, so why i wasted a perfectly good categorical denunciation when know one was around i dunno.

But two years ago, I read him again.  ZOWIE!  Like a riot in the heart.

hap

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #391 on: May 24, 2006, 04:31:09 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SaburoS
Sorry, not quite that simple.

1) To believe in God is to take a leap of faith.
2) To not believe in God is to not take that leap of faith.

Agnostics, by their nature won't take a stand either way for they don't accept the explainations yet put forth. The moment they accept that there is a God is the moment they take that leap of faith and become a believer.

Agnostics are unsure. Might be, might not be. The moment thay take a stand one way or the other is when they no longer are Agnostic.


To believe in something that is not and perhaps cannot be proven is by definition faith. We're not talking about the easter bunny here. We have very real evidence that the Universe exists. If we can't at least agree on that point then this conversation is pointless.

There are those who believe that it was created by God, those who accept not knowing how it came to be, and those who believe that it was not created by God. Why is it so hard to see that only the middle position requires no faith?

Offline Vulcan

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9891
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #392 on: May 24, 2006, 04:31:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Simaril
Vulcan, both in this and in your prior posts you're making absolutist statements despite having pretty limited understanding of christian texts and teachings. (I.E., your statements about the origin of the biblical canon sound more like polemic than reasoned opinion, and when confronted with data the issue kinda went away.)

Let me just address the age of the earth thing, since it seems to be a bugaboo for you.

In the original hebrew....  


Again my point, when push comes to shove the bible on this particular subject should not be taken literally right?

So how many teachings in the bible shouldn't be taken literally?

And at what point should we cut off "assumptions made by ministers"? The 1800s? The 1600's? The 1200's? or the 3rd century?

How can you have faith in a religion whos core belief system is based on a text which is contradictory, obviously been contrived to political circumstances for the period, and interpretation has to be used so often to cover its glaring falicies?

Offline Hap

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #393 on: May 24, 2006, 04:44:15 PM »
Vulcan, again, I agree with you in part.  Here's a link that might be handy.

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm

hap

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #394 on: May 24, 2006, 04:45:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Vulcan
Again my point, when push comes to shove the bible on this particular subject should not be taken literally right?

So how many teachings in the bible shouldn't be taken literally?

And at what point should we cut off "assumptions made by ministers"? The 1800s? The 1600's? The 1200's? or the 3rd century?

How can you have faith in a religion whos core belief system is based on a text which is contradictory, obviously been contrived to political circumstances for the period, and interpretation has to be used so often to cover its glaring falicies?


How can I have faith? That's a good question. For me it has been many very real personal experiences without which I would be agnostic. When you believe something to be true you don't automatically discard your belief because it may seem to be internally inconsistent. Rather, you examine your understanding of what you believe which I do continually.

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #395 on: May 24, 2006, 07:45:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You say you do not believe in God.  If you do not believe in God, do you believe in the non-existance of God?  I think I read a post of yours that you do not.

If you do not believe one way or the other, you are agnostic, refusing to take a leap of faith either way.


I do not believe that there is a God/Supreme Being.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #396 on: May 24, 2006, 07:53:40 PM »
Atheism
Agnosticism
Agnostic Atheism
From the third link.

"While the concepts of atheism and agnosticism occasionally overlap, they are distinct because atheism is generally defined as a condition of being without theistic beliefs while agnosticism is usually defined as an absence of knowledge (or any claim of knowledge); therefore, an agnostic person may also be either an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position.

The reason that people referring to themselves as agnostics prefer agnostic atheism might be that they tend to be familiar with epistemology and theory of justification. One such popular theory is Occam's Razor, which suggests that if there doesn't seem to be a need for God, then God most likely doesn't exist.

Also, one may hold a position of agnostic theism in which one disavows knowledge of God's existence, but chooses to believe in God in spite of this.

One of the most well-known agnostic atheists is Bertrand Russell."
« Last Edit: May 24, 2006, 08:00:05 PM by SaburoS »
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline wrag

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3499
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #397 on: May 24, 2006, 08:09:29 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SaburoS
Atheism
Agnosticism
Agnostic Atheism
From the third link.

"While the concepts of atheism and agnosticism occasionally overlap, they are distinct because atheism is generally defined as a condition of being without theistic beliefs while agnosticism is usually defined as an absence of knowledge (or any claim of knowledge); therefore, an agnostic person may also be either an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position.

The reason that people referring to themselves as agnostics prefer agnostic atheism might be that they tend to be familiar with epistemology and theory of justification. One such popular theory is Occam's Razor, which suggests that if there doesn't seem to be a need for God, then God most likely doesn't exist.

Also, one may hold a position of agnostic theism in which one disavows knowledge of God's existence, but chooses to believe in God in spite of this.

One of the most well-known agnostic atheists is Bertrand Russell."


The 3rd link appears to be someones BLOG.
It's been said we have three brains, one cobbled on top of the next. The stem is first, the reptilian brain; then the mammalian cerebellum; finally the over developed cerebral cortex.  They don't work together in awfully good harmony - hence ax murders, mobs, and socialism.

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #398 on: May 24, 2006, 08:15:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by wrag
Perhaps you should go read the wikepedia definitions?

It appears that some Atheist agree with laz.  Both believing and non-believing are a leap of faith.

The entire subject appears somewhat muddled IMHO.  There doesn't appear to be agreement as to what an atheist is even among atheist????

AND there are ATHEIST CHURCHS??????


I tend to not trust Wikepedia as its definitions do not appear to be truly neutral.
Snipped the following direct from Wikepedia's own front page:

"snip~ articles are subject to change by nearly anyone."
"Because of its open nature, vandalism and inaccuracy are problems in Wikipedia."
"The status of Wikipedia as a reference work has been controversial, and it is both praised for its free distribution, free editing and wide range of topics and criticized for alleged systemic biases, preference of consensus to credentials, deficiencies in some topics, and lack of accountability and authority when compared with traditional encyclopedias."

Maybe because there truly isn't an official book of Atheism. Not surprising that there would be differences of opinion. Not uncommon of most groups.

Atheist Churches??!! That's gotta be a joke. What the heck do they do there?
« Last Edit: May 24, 2006, 08:18:32 PM by SaburoS »
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #399 on: May 24, 2006, 08:34:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lukster
To believe in something that is not and perhaps cannot be proven is by definition faith. We're not talking about the easter bunny here. We have very real evidence that the Universe exists. If we can't at least agree on that point then this conversation is pointless.

There are those who believe that it was created by God, those who accept not knowing how it came to be, and those who believe that it was not created by God. Why is it so hard to see that only the middle position requires no faith?


Because it's all about baseline core beliefs. You assert that to not believe in God just has to be a "leap of faith".
In all three viewpoints, we have faith that there is a universe. Notice that that faith is not religious based for we are not dealing with the existence of a God.

There are those who believe it was created by God (leap of faith). They hold this idea as the absolute truth and reject it as a random event.

There are those in the middle that have absolutely no real idea of how it came about. They haven't bought into the scientific explainations as it is not complete and not 100% absolute (No leap of faith). They may also believe that God may in fact have created the universe (leap of faith), but are unsure. They cannot prove either side.

There is the third group that because they didn't make the leap of faith in the existence of God/divine intervention, that there has to be an answer not involving God. In this case random energy/matter, antienergy-antimatter, etc. Does that third group have 100% certainty the exact beginnings of the universe? No, however because of the lack of faith in God's existence, they rule out divine intervention.

*****
atheism (ā`thē-ĭz'əm), denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism agnosticism (ăgnŏs`tĭsĭzəm), form of skepticism that holds that the existence of God cannot be logically proved or disproved. Among prominent agnostics have been Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, and T.
..... Click the link for more information. , which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The term atheism has been used as an accusation against all who attack established orthodoxy, as in the trial of Socrates. There were few avowed atheists from classical times until the 19th cent., when popular belief in a conflict between religion and science brought forth preachers of the gospel of atheism, such as Robert G. Ingersoll. There are today many individuals and groups professing atheism. The 20th cent. has seen many individuals and groups professing atheism, including Bertrand Russell Russell, Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3d Earl, 1872–1970, British philosopher, mathematician, and social reformer, b. Trelleck, Wales.
Life
The Early Years


Russell had a distinguished background: His grandfather Lord John Russell introduced the Reform Bill of 1832 and was twice prime minister; his parents were both prominent freethinkers; and his informal godfather was John Stuart Mill .
..... Click the link for more information.  and Madalyn Murry O'Hair.

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia® Copyright © 2005, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. http://www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #400 on: May 24, 2006, 08:37:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by wrag
The 3rd link appears to be someones BLOG.


they borrowed it from Wikepedia. I hadn't heard the term Agnostic Atheist before.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #401 on: May 24, 2006, 08:41:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SaburoS
I tend to not trust Wikepedia as its definitions do not appear to be truly neutral.
Snipped the following direct from Wikepedia's own front page:

"snip~ articles are subject to change by nearly anyone."
"Because of its open nature, vandalism and inaccuracy are problems in Wikipedia."
"The status of Wikipedia as a reference work has been controversial, and it is both praised for its free distribution, free editing and wide range of topics and criticized for alleged systemic biases, preference of consensus to credentials, deficiencies in some topics, and lack of accountability and authority when compared with traditional encyclopedias."


Wikepedia is good for some things, such as covering topics that aren't in any dispute. However, for a topic as incindiary as Religion, it's basically useless.

It's commonplace, for example, for staffers in Washington to sit down with their laptops, then edit and smear the entries of political opponents over a bagel and latte.

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #402 on: May 24, 2006, 08:52:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SaburoS
In all three viewpoints, we have faith that there is a universe.


I think we can safely say there is sustantial proof of the existance of the universe.

Faith
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Quote

*****
atheism (ā`thē-ĭz'əm), denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism agnosticism (ăgnŏs`tĭsĭzəm), form of skepticism that holds that the existence of God cannot be logically proved or disproved.
[/b]


Your quote agrees with my stance.  According to your link, Atheism denies the existance of God.

The absence of belief is much different from the belief in absence.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2006, 08:55:04 PM by Holden McGroin »
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Mr Big

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 544
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #403 on: May 24, 2006, 08:55:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nash

It's commonplace, for example, for staffers in Washington to sit down with their laptops, then edit and smear the entries of political opponents over a bagel and latte.


That'd be funny to go into a listing, like say for President Bush or John Kerry, and totally make up stuff out of thin air. Stupid things....like their favorite color, etc...

In fact, I'd laugh if you did that, then linked it for us :D

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Atheism and the USA, followup
« Reply #404 on: May 24, 2006, 08:58:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SaburoS
they borrowed it from Wikepedia. I hadn't heard the term Agnostic Atheist before.


And Hangtime got his definition: "neo-Democrat".... from Wikipedia, despite nobody else ever hearing the term before. My guess is that a double latte was involved.

Anyways, that's Wikipedia. Carry on.