Jubeebee: Anyway, what's it called when you think the sum total of the Universe is analogous to God? I know there's a term for it but I forget.

Pantheism, but it's really actually a bit silly to classify that as a form of belief. If you believe the entire universe is God, why call it God in the first place? Why not just call it the universe? Aren't you basically just renaming something "God" at that point?

Lord_Baull 2009-07-02 01:21:13 PM
Yes, she posited that the animals on Australia could have populated the planet Krakatoa-style.

Scratch that, I meant the animals on Australia could have populated the continent Krakatoa-style.

I enjoy my Deity with parmesan cheese and a light coating of olive oil. And lots of garlic.


/RAmen

filth: Diogenes: Drawing a limit to what is knowable and what is not is not being "unsure" of your beliefs.

"...in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to thnk both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).

The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense." - Wittgenstein

Being "knowable," in the logical sense, is absolutely unrelated to matters of faith. If you need God to help you with logic, you're a retard; if you need God to be subject to logic, you lack imagination.

This has become one of my major 'problems' with any and all religion...its ALL based on some other humans imagination. There really is zero reality when it comes to god...Apparently people just need to believe in someone else's imagination because its more real to them then their own.

/Religious Vomit (new window)

Jubeebee: You're blowing my mind, man! You talk like how I talk when I'm drunk and high at the same time.

It's my personal goal to shrug off the human viewpoint. Or at least, be able to put it down from time to time.

Milkbeer: Do some in here find it "ironic" that our, as the media professes, completely non-religious scientific community is looking for something called the "God Particle"?

Considering it's the media that popularized the term "the god particle" after one physicist used the analogy in passing. It's like the way Einstein is often quoted as referring to "god", even though he was only using the term metaphorically or in reference to physics.

letrole 2009-07-02 01:15:58 PM
Atheism is a Religion.

Not playing soccer is a sport.

sigdiamond2000: GilRuiz1: How can you have been on FARK for seven years and yet missed all of those stories?

All one of them?

Deucednuisance: Wouldn't that statement imply more than a single story?


Well, do a search of FARK for the appropriate stories. Don't make me do all the work!


"WAT? No! We want you to do all the work for us!"

wmoonfox: If one were to break the word base down into theist/atheist/antitheist, then, yes, you would be correct: the lack of a belief in any deity would constitute atheism. It follows, though, that the steadfast belief in the non-existence of any deity would therefore qualify as "antitheism", which is not a widely used term. Indeed, the common tongue uses atheism and antitheism fairly interchangeably, so the realistic application of the definition you put forth is far from unshakable.

If you want to take it that way sure... but even under a split like that antitheism would qualify as an atheistic position. So really all that is accomplished is defining a group within a group. And sadly yes, many equate Atheist with Antitheist to attempt to demonize Atheists entirely, or to attempt to create some kind of middle ground they feel safer in.

FlyingPig: Jubeebee: Anyway, what's it called when you think the sum total of the Universe is analogous to God? I know there's a term for it but I forget.

Pantheism, but it's really actually a bit silly to classify that as a form of belief. If you believe the entire universe is God, why call it God in the first place? Why not just call it the universe? Aren't you basically just renaming something "God" at that point?

OH! I had some huge argument with a guy who was a Pantheist because we couldn't communicate our ideas well to each other and we both got frustrated and assumed the other person believed something they didn't so we just called each other idiots for a while. We figured it out eventually.

t3knomanser: crab66: Wrong.

Um, no. Right. That's exactly it. Theists and atheists are two disjoint but complete sets that contain all humans. Period. You may be a theist, but if you are not a theist, you must be an atheist.

Let me give you some other examples:
Theist:Atheist::Red:Not Red
Theist:Atheist::Car:Not Car
Theist:Atheist::Cat:Not Cat

Are you going to argue that a car could be neither red nor non-red? Or that an animal could be neither a cat nor a non-cat?



Yes. It's called not knowing. Let's assume the the oversimplified examples you use are intangibles.

Theist:Atheist::Red:Not Red

I'm not sure it's red, I don't have enough information.
Based on what I know I am not willing to side with those that say it's red or say it's not red.


Theist:Atheist::Car:Not Car

I'm not sure it's a car I don't have enough information to say. And so on.


Theist:Atheist::Cat:Not Cat


etc etc etc.


That is agnostic. It would be great if life were as simple as yes and no.

Jubeebee: Anyway, what's it called when you think the sum total of the Universe is analogous to God? I know there's a term for it but I forget.

I believe the word you're thinking of is pantheism.

t3knomanser: crab66: Wrong.

Um, no. Right. That's exactly it. Theists and atheists are two disjoint but complete sets that contain all humans. Period. You may be a theist, but if you are not a theist, you must be an atheist.

Let me give you some other examples:
Theist:Atheist::Red:Not Red
Theist:Atheist::Car:Not Car
Theist:Atheist::Cat:Not Cat

Are you going to argue that a car could be neither red nor non-red? Or that an animal could be neither a cat nor a non-cat?

The problem here is you can prove all of the examples easily by simply staring at the item. The existence of a Deity? Not so much. Some people claim to have spoken to the Deity or to have seen him, but they tend to take anti-psychotics for that sort of thing. Or, they are simply lying.

The difference between Atheist and Theist is the belief in the intangible or lack of belief of the intangible. Since science can only do so much to affirm the suspicions of either side we get into logical tangents and the abstract interpretation of matter as proof and that enters philosophy.

I like where you were trying to go though.

I think it's very funny how many "open minded" atheists are telling agnostics how it really is. It really drives home the point that they're nothing like the devoutly religious.

/Agnostic Deist, not atheist. I can see my god, he's the entire universe.

I tend to think that an agnostic is someone who does in fact believe in a god of some sort, but just doesn't know the nature of god or what god's will might be, or believe in any organized religion, but does in fact believe that there is a 'something', but doesn't claim to know what it is. And an atheist just doesn't believe that there is this "something".
But an atheist like myself can in fact claim that there is the possibility that there is a "something" and still not be agnostic. I don't discount the possibility of anything that is unknown. There could be fairy's, unicorns, and Bigfoot. But since there is not any proof that these exist, I can't believe in them. But like I said, that doesn't mean that I don't think that the possibility of such things couldn't exist. That doesn't make me a Bigfoot agnostic because I don't outright discount the idea of the "possibility" of such a creature. You would have to be pretty closed minded to take the absolute stance on anything that is as unknown or as unknowable as "god".

This thread is way too serious.

Lighten up Francis.


Who cares what someone believes as long as it is not oppressive? The only person you should judge is yourself.

/atheist
//beliefs mean you are decider of what is right and what is wrong. ( " I BELIEVE THAT... yadda yadda ")
///don't tell me what to believe ( or whether i can or can not do something)
////because i won't be listening
// we are just vibrations anyways right?

// oppressive has two s 's

GilRuiz1: Don't make me do all the work!

Why not?

It's your axe, you grind it.

Good thing most agnostics not only are sure of what they believe, but actually know why, and can understand and explain their reasons logically.

This must mean that all the religious are unsure what they really believe -- that explains the close mindedness.

t3knomanser: Which is where I'm going with this. While only a very small number of atheists would say with 100% certainty that there is no god, most would dismiss it as so unlikely to be unworthy of consideration.

I fall within the ballpark of the "there is no evidence, so shut up about it already and leave me alone" atheist. It's not that I'm a hundred percent certain, I just don't give a shiat.

devildog123 2009-07-02 08:35:37 AM

/agnostic
//Libertarian
///I think I'm more open minded than most of you.

I'm 100% sure I'm more open-minded than you, and will not entertain any argument to the contrary.

I contend the moment someone explains the intelligent design behind myopia, appendix, wisdom teeth and Down's Syndrome, I'll become religious.

Blind_Io: Agnostic != Atheist

An agnostic recognizes that it is a logical fallacy to prove the non-existence of something. Therefore we can never know if god doesn't exist, we can only fail to find proof that it does exist. Lack of proof of existence is not proof of non-existence.

An Atheist believes god does not exist, even though this is a logical fallacy. It is a belief in the absence of proof (AKA: Faith) despite the fact that the non-existence of a god is impossible to prove.

Are you agnostic to Leprechauns? Unicorns? How about centaurs or dragons? Fairies? Ghosts? Russel's Teapot?

The only valid position to take on the existence of anything is disbelief until satisfactory evidence has been provided for its existence. As an atheist, I'm not saying that there will never be evidence for a god. Rather, what I'm saying that until that evidence presented, the only logically defensible position is the that which I would take with any outlandish claim: disbelief.

servoled: crab66: servoled: If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist.

Wrong.

Sorry, but by the philosophical definition it is correct. Its only wrong if you are trying to avoid the question by warping the definition to bring in some kind of false middle position, or don't understand the question to begin with.

What about Buddhists?

crab66: Yes. It's called not knowing. Let's assume the the oversimplified examples you use are intangibles.

Theist:Atheist::Red:Not Red

I'm not sure it's red, I don't have enough information.
Based on what I know I am not willing to side with those that say it's red or say it's not red.

Atheism/Theism is a question of your beliefs, not what you know. It may amaze you, but the two are different.

Do you hold "The car is red" to be true (i.e. Do you believe the car is red)? If yes, you are a Theist in this example. If you hold any other position, including not being sure, you are not a Theist, i.e. an Atheist.

Lord_Baull: I contend the moment someone explains the intelligent design behind myopia, appendix, wisdom teeth and Down's Syndrome, I'll become religious.

The Aristocrats!

(get it?)

CtrlAltDelete: I don't know if I agree with that.

I guess I could see it both ways.

You're a bad ass :-)

Cody

As a Christian I know this to be true of all Faith systems, It doesn't matter which religion, Christian, Judaism, Islam, or Atheist.

and Agnostic is just an atheist without the balls to stand up for something.

Thread needs more:

servoled: crab66: Yes. It's called not knowing. Let's assume the the oversimplified examples you use are intangibles.

Theist:Atheist::Red:Not Red

I'm not sure it's red, I don't have enough information.
Based on what I know I am not willing to side with those that say it's red or say it's not red.

Atheism/Theism is a question of your beliefs, not what you know. It may amaze you, but the two are different.

Do you hold "The car is red" to be true (i.e. Do you believe the car is red)? If yes, you are a Theist in this example. If you hold any other position, including not being sure, you are not a Theist, i.e. an Atheist.

No it simply means I don't know.

FlyingPig: Jubeebee: Anyway, what's it called when you think the sum total of the Universe is analogous to God? I know there's a term for it but I forget.

Pantheism, but it's really actually a bit silly to classify that as a form of belief. If you believe the entire universe is God, why call it God in the first place? Why not just call it the universe? Aren't you basically just renaming something "God" at that point?

Ah, thank you.

I do mostly call it the universe. I'm just saying, it's omnipresent (oh look, this keyboard is part of the universe, so is my chair etc), omniscient (every thought anywhere ever is part of the universe), and omnipotent (everything that has ever happened is also part of the universe). Therefore the universe as a whole fits pretty much every description of God I've ever seen.

But that's about as spiritual as I get, acknowledging that. For all practical purposes, I'm a Humanist.

t3knomanser

Englebert Slaptyback: *sigh* Someone isn't paying attention.

And that person is you.

Theist: things that say, "There is a god".
Atheist: all things that aren't theists.


Please do keep up with the "only black or white" line of thought. I'll be over here with a functional dictionary and something called 'nuance'.

The Book of Mormon can be disproved using Mitochondrial DNA evidence, Scientology was started as a bet between two writers at a Science-Fiction conference, and Muslims worship a giant meteorite.

/That is all.

servoled: If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist.

Wrong, on many, many levels. Lose the capital 'G', and you might have a leg to stand on.

/a close minded, simplistic, and wrong leg
//but at least you could make a reasonable argument.

CrankMyBlueSax 2009-07-02 01:33:07 PM
(get it?)

The Aristocrats? Seems obscure.

wbaxter: As a Christian I know this to be true of all Faith systems, It doesn't matter which religion, Christian, Judaism, Islam, or Atheist.

and Agnostic is just an atheist without the balls to stand up for something.

You believe in fairy tales. We understand. Now go play with your dolls.

Milkbeer: All I gotta say, is where would LAPD be without rodney king? Agnostics want to take christian's "Rodney King", call him the cause of all world problems, and at the same time, say that Obama is "Rodney King"

//that was a metaphor for all the useful idiots in here who think Obama is the messiah.

Which is like, zero. You dickshaft.

omris: Accent: FTA: People who are less confident in their beliefs are more reluctant than others to seek out opposing perspectives, researchers said today.

Could it be they seek out opposing perspectives so they can tell them they ARE WRONG AND WILL BURN IN A FIERY DAMNATION FOR ALL ETERNITY IF THEY DO NOT BELIEVE... or is it to tell them they will turn into dirt after they die and that's pretty much the end of it.

I have some questions that neither side can answer, so I'm just going to sit here and not ask for a bottled response.

Well I think that this particular study involved a lot of reading material, not interaction. So, if I'm very sure in my political opinion, I'm more likely to read news espousing both my opinion and opposing opinions. Whereas if I believe something on a shakier foundation, I tend to actively avoid news that doesn't agree with my stated beliefs. And the strength of belief here is a personal measurement, not a measurement of the quality of information it's based on.

I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

rastjr: I was good to people and left the world better than when I came in.

Maybe, according to the one true god, you were supposed to be an asshole.

wbaxter: As a Christian I know this to be true of all Faith systems, It doesn't matter which religion, Christian, Judaism, Islam, or Atheist.

and Agnostic is just an atheist without the balls to stand up for something.

You may wish to learn something about these topics before you start looking foolish

/well, too late
//any more foolish?

Brainsick: What about Buddhists?

I'd have to say it really depends on how you define "God". By the Christian definition, they would fall under atheism. Under a different definition they may not.

Theism/Atheism says nothing other than whether you believe that god(s) exist. Outside of that you can't really infer anything. You could be an atheist and still practice religion of some sort, or a theist and not practice any religion.

Lord_Baull: The Aristocrats? Seems obscure.

It's a joke.

Speaking as an atheist, I can tell you I love the debate. It is not a matter of being closed minded, it is just that there really is no empirical data supporting the existence of a rational or intelligent force being the workings of the universe. Complexity alone is not evidence.

I am open to all evidence, provided it follows empirical guidelines. The one thing I will not accept is that empiricism itself is equal to belief. That argument holds no water.

I've always based my Atheism on a rejection of every religion offered.

Do you want to be a catholic?

Well, lemme see what you're supposed to believe.... nope don't believe in that.

What about a hindu?

lets see... nope, don't believe in that also.

Well what DO you believe in then EH?

I don't know man, not that stuff for sure, all of it is based on some other guy I don't know guessing, I don't even trust myself guessing. I just want someone to explain how all the shiat in the universe operates and I'll be happy.

On a side note: I find it interesting that so many people believe an undying creature or force would be intelligent. If something cannot die, it has no reason to think, because thought is a trait animals developed to better avoid death.

Accent: I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

The same way a WOW player can have a strong body odor without a strong body

GurneyHalleck: Anyone who says they're sure of their beliefs has closed their mind.

I know I am.

Be careful What you let into your head because you'll never get it out again.

This is why Daoism pwns. Forces you to listen to everyone before you can pretend to have an answer ;)

crab66: No it simply means I don't know the difference between knowledge and belief.

FTFY

wbaxter: As a Christian I know this to be true of all Faith systems,

Now THAT is funny.

FlyingPig: GurneyHalleck: Anyone who says they're sure of their beliefs has closed their mind.

So basically, we're not allowed to be sure of anything, ever? If we followed that to its logical extension, we'd never be able to have an opinion on anything.

Everyone should be about 95 percent sure of what they believe in. There's a non-zero chance ANYTHING could be wrong, and every honest person has to admit that. That doesn't mean you can't ever be confident of your opinions. Yes, keep your mind open to the possibility of it being changed, but anyone who goes around being unsure of his most basic beliefs has no self-esteem or conviction.

Congradulations! You have stumbled across the philosophical concept of skepticism...and no, you are wrong. Skepticism pretty much comes down to you cannot know anything without knowing everything b/c without knowing everything there exists the possibility of something that contridicts that which you think you know and b/c you cannot know what you do not know you will never know everything; the possibility that something exists that you do not know will always be there.

servoled: crab66: No it simply means I don't know the difference between knowledge and belief.

FTFY

Yeah we have established you have no idea what you're talking about.

Step two is shutting the fark up.

Brainsick: Accent: I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

The same way a WOW player can have a strong body odor without a strong body

As a WoW player with a weak body I *sniff . . sniff*

Nevermind.