Preserved Topic: Agnostics != undecided && Atheism == religion

hmm...
I disagree with Agnostics being perpetually described as "undecided".

I am not undecided.
I have absolutely decided religion to be a foolish endeavor, because one cannot know what is or is not true.
No one can know if there is or is not a god.

No matter what book, teachings, or mysteriously lost golden tablets tell you, being absolutely infallible in the correctness of your beliefs, and denouncing others' beliefs as poppycock is an outrageous act of egoism.
Accepting the possibility of other beliefs to be correct is totally contrary to the institution of religion as well the concept of "faith" (see also "blind unchallenged belief").
If you practice a religion, with the belief it could be wrong, you are neither practicing nor religious.

Agnostics do not know, and don't profess to, because no one can know.

This is why I label Atheism as a religion (boy do they hate that).
They too profess to know the truth. They profess to absolutely know that there IS NO god.
As if that were any different from those who profess to absolutely know there IS a god (or gods).
How incredibly absurd.

note: This topic was created upon viewing the "Does god exist?" formal debate topic.

Wow. Full of piss and vinegar aren't we? Please, don't mince words. That's not meant as a slam BTW, I find it refreshing when people speak their minds...that said, let's take a look at yours.

because one cannot know what is or is not true.
So would this be a true statement, or a false one? This is committing the fundamental and fatal flaw of postmodernity - "there are no absolutes...really? Absolutely." You are denying the possibility of truth based on the supposed "fact" that you have a corner on it. Inconsistent to it's core.

denouncing others' beliefs as poppycock is an outrageous act of egoism.
Like you are doing here? Again, I'm not entirely tounge in cheek, but this seems to me to be a rather outrageous form of egoism. And it's sheer poppycock to boot (nice word poppycock BTW, I need to start using that more often...)

Accepting the possibility of other beliefs to be correct is totally contrary to the institution of religion as well the concept of "faith" (see also "blind unchallenged belief").
Not only to religion, but to humanity, reason, the epistimology based on experience. You have to believe what you believe. Reality requires it of us. That precludes believing something else to be true if the two are mutually exclusive(which they often are with religions, Christianity in particular...)


If you practice a religion, with the belief it could be wrong, you are neither practicing nor religious.
Tru Dat, you are then a hypocrite. If I believe that there is a good and righteous God, and that it is wrong to murder, and I do it, that tells something about my limited belief and indwelling sin. However, all people practice hypocrisy when clinging to an ideal, an arche bigger than themselves. Unless that Ideal is self-defined, therefore subjective, therefore relative, therefore, well....pretty much useless for anything more than keeping oneself happy.

This is why I label Atheism as a religion (boy do they hate that).
Amen. It is a religion. As is agnosticism.....

They too profess to know the truth. They profess to absolutely know that there IS NO god.
As if that were any different from those who profess to absolutely know there IS a god (or gods).
How incredibly absurd.

I'll requote that as it was a bit of a doozy:
how incredibly absurd
This looks to me, like all the statements you've made in this post, to be a declaration of truth. An absolute statement. Hrm.


I'm not sure what the tone of this response was, I am finishing up some work and had to just quickly get this out before I go home and go to bed(I have Church in the morning there goes my cover....) I also tend to type in sentence fragments when rushed, so my syntax is no doubt appaling. Anywho, I hope this gets continued. Peace.

"I have this disease late at night sometimes, involving alcohol and the telephone."
- Kurt Vonnegut

BTW, just another little note, I can't speak for others obviously, but my perception of Agnosticism is that it means just what the word does: Without Knowledge. The affirmation of the statement that if there is a God, god, or gods, we wouldn't know it. As far as I know the term was coined in response to the Gnostics, who believed that they had attained a "secret" truth. The problem with your particular brand of agnosticism is that it seems to be based on relativism, using oneself as an absolute referent. This type of presupposition is, in itself, a self-refuting one. For reasonably consistent adherents of this type of thinking, see: Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin(sp??), Charles Manson, those guys who murdered Matthew Shepard... Not saying that they all clung to it by name, but the actions bespeak something very, umm, human. Anywho. That was a bit of a ramble, basically, imho, agnosticism should be seen and not heard. Not agnostics mind you, I know a good many of those, and some are delightful people, but agnosticism as a relativistic pursuit really can't say anything with out breaking it's own rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, as always.


"I believe in God like I believe in the sun rise. Not because I can see it, but because I can see all that it touches. "
C.S. Lewis

Sorry, not trying to be a thread-hog, but I just had a thought that I thought I'd wing at'cha.

one cannot know what is or is not true.
No one can know if there is or is not a god.

This is not only an absolute statement about truth, but it appears to be a statement about God in the form of a condensed hypothetical syllogism...

If there is a God
We cannot know who He is
A statement not only about you, but a statement about God)

If there is not a God
We cannot know that He isn't
once again, a statement about yourself which assumes complete knowledge about yourself, and likely, about all of humanity - really now, do you know the absolute limits of what you can do as a finite, human being, or even more ludicrously, what all humans are capable of?

The claim that you are making here is not that you do not have knowledge, but that you do. A knowledge which could be said to fly in the face of a large portion of human experience. In essence, in you statement denying the existence of truth, the ad gnosos, you have asserted it's existence, and further still, you have claimed to have an exlusive access to it. In short, you have become a gnostic in your agnostic assertion. Or so it seems.... I really hope I don't get slammed for this one....

"All that we call human history--money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery--[is] the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy."
-Jack


[This message has been edited by cpkdog (edited 08-25-2002).]

genis - what about people who have actually died, and come back? Some have had the experience of 'meeting' something else, and others haven't. But almost consistently, are descriptions of the conciousness continuing after death...

Are you then saying that their experiences are not valid?

because one cannot know what is or is not true.
So would this be a true statement, or a false one?
my statement was targeted within the realm of insufficient knowledge.
I do believe there is a spoon, okay?
Let's not turn this into a lecture on the perils of postmodernity, as that concept is best kept as a reject of the 70s where it belongs.

denouncing others' beliefs as poppycock is an outrageous act of egoism.
Like you are doing here?
i do not denounce them, as an agnostic i do not denounce anything, i believe all to be a possibility.
How could I possibly know their belief is wrong? I can't.
Therefore i am not denouncing their belief as it pertains to their vision of a creator or overseer, I am denouncing their practice of denunciation of others' beliefs.
This being totally kosher seeing as how their denunciation is derived from the realm of insufficient knowledge once again, whereas my denunciation stems from reality as seen in the centuries of warfare with egoism and the denunciation of others' beliefs as the catalyst.

You have to believe what you believe.
Lucky for you there is choice in all that is believed.
I don't have to believe the rock being thrown at me is hard and will hurt, however based on the knowledge gained after the experience I will surely KNOW it is indeed hard and it did in fact hurt.
Religion once again exists within the unknown and you can believe whatever you wish as it pertains to creation, evolution, afterlife, but the fact remains... you don't KNOW anything.

Amen. It is a religion. As is agnosticism.....
how so?
once again, i profess to know nothing about the realm of religion, which is creation, afterlife, why we are here, etc. Ceding all that is believed about the subject as a possibility.
I'm sure you are trying to pronounce it as religion as being Agnostic does bind you to a certain mindset of rules, or dogma, but dogma does not a religion make. (any Catholics know this?)

This looks to me, like all the statements you've made in this post, to be a declaration of truth. An absolute statement. Hrm.
Please see above.

but my perception of Agnosticism is that it means just what the word does: Without Knowledge.
your perception is correct.
I am without knowledge of the vast makings of the cosmos or who made it.
Agnostics are of course, not without knowledge altogether, how else would we have come up with such a nifty name for ourselves?
The gnostic gospels really have nothing to do with modern Agnosticism, either.

This type of presupposition is, in itself, a self-refuting one.
Well you would think that, but in fact such sentences perpetually glaze over my eyes, so as to block my reading of them.

As for your ranting about Agnostics being Stalin, Hitler, and Manson. Amazing how these names come up, yet they have no common link in religious ideology. They were however self-serving if that's what your meaning was with that whole relativism rant.
Your really not helping your case however, when I'm listing the unfortunate selfishness imposed by the thought control that is blind allegiance to an institution of religion.

really now, do you know the absolute limits of what you can do as a finite, human being, or even more ludicrously, what all humans are capable of?
for that last time... NO!! Do you?

A knowledge which could be said to fly in the face of a large portion of human experience.
it could. But you don't seem to be saying it.

in you statement denying the existence of truth, the ad gnosos
once again... within the realm of religion, that being which is unknown, where truth does not exist as a fact.
perhaps i should've made this more clear in a topic discussing religion.... or maybe you should've waited for a reply before 3 posts?

you have asserted it's existence, and further still, you have claimed to have an exlusive access to it.
your syllogism practice has ended, grasshopper, now it is time for you to hone your craft in the real world.
go forth and roam the countryside, analyzing all speech for syllogisms and bring wonderful sleep to the villages.

I really hope I don't get slammed for this one....
doh! sorry.

WebShaman.... work with me here.

My original post just didn't click with anybody did it?

Yes, in fact i personally believe there is an afterlife, WebShaman, based on those types of experiences.
I just don't profess to KNOW i'm right.
Because i sure as hell don't. (<-- heh, funny.)
Thus, leaving me open to not disapprove others who believe there not to be an afterlife.

The term "agnostic" can apply to anything. Most often it seems to be used for whether or not a person believes God exists. I firmly believe God exists but I'm agnostic about whether we have immortal souls.

quote:

---

If you practice a religion, with the belief it could be wrong, you are neither practicing nor religious.

---

I totally disagree with this. You are assuming all religions require as you put it "blind unchallenged belief". I am religious and I do practice it regularly *and* I hold out the possibility it could be wrong. Please explain to me why that's not the case.

The issue of what people prefer to call themselves is a valid one. I'm going to agree with you on that. I have always thought that an "agnostic" was unwilling to say whether God exists or not due to a lack of evidence. I prefer to reserve the label "atheist" for those who "believe" in the non-existence of God.

*However*, I have met several prominent atheists who totally disagree with that definition. I will point out two and let you decide, one who I've met and the other I *think* I did in college, LOL.

Joseph Michael Straczynski the creator of Babylon 5 and many other excellent shows and literature calls himself and atheist but defines it as someone who does not disbelieve in God but rather one who won't believe in Him unless sufficient evidence presents itself. I never asked Joe what it would take to change his mind.

Another atheist, the late Dr. Gordon Stein, also took the same view of the term atheism. He was asked what it would take to get him to believe and he usually pointed to the nearest large object and talked about it lifting up above his head and a loud voice from above declaring itself to be the Almighty.

So I tend to call people what they insist on being called but respectfully make sure they know I may have problems with the labeling. The important thing is to foster good communication between us all.

Let me point out one more thing about the formal debate thread. I'm not sure how much of it you read or how carefully but BeeKay's opening remarks should have clued you in to the spirit of the debate which was:

quote:

---

What we hope to gain by the end of the debate is an understanding not of what the participants believe, but rather WHY they believe what they do, and how they SUPPORT those beliefs.

---

Learning why we take the positions we do on this topic can only increase our mutual understanding.

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 08-25-2002).]

The term "agnostic" can apply to anything.
wrong. the verb "agnostic" can mean noncommittal, however
the noun "agnostic", I myself being a person and not an action, is defined as this:
Function: noun
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

I am religious and I do practice it regularly *and* I hold out the possibility it could be wrong. Please explain to me why that's not the case.
Just as cpkdog said, you cannot believe two things at once that are mutually exclusive.
Faith is the blind alliegience to a way of thinking about the ultimate reality, the ultimate destination, the ultimate creator, etc.
You either believe that Jesus lived and died for your sins, or you do not.
Christianity does not allow you to say "well maybe he did. I'll go to church to be on the safe side."
Hardcore christians call that fire insurance.
You have to firmly believe this to gain access into heaven.
In Buddhism you are not allowed to say "well maybe nirvana is the ultimate enlightenment, and will end the reincarnation of life cycle for me, but maybe not. Oh well, I guess i'll follow the eightfold path anyway."

We're all into etymology here, let's look at the etymology of religion shall we?
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back.

See? A sanction of the ideas of the supernatural... a supernatural constraint.
There is no open interpretation.
As before, the concept of faith does not allow for such leeway.
You are like most people... agnostic without knowing you are.

I prefer to reserve the label "atheist" for those who "believe" in the non-existence of God.
me too.
Your friends, Joseph Michael Straczynski and Dr. Gordon Stein, however are agnostics and not atheists.
Time to look up the definition of atheist:
Function: noun
Date: 1571
: one who denies the existence of God

Well there you have it. You're only an atheist if you deny the existence of God.
Sounds like a constrained view of the supernatural to me... how bout you?

Let me point out one more thing about the formal debate thread. I'm not sure how much of it you read
I just started this thread based on a graphic in that thread which defined me as "undecided".
That is all, I felt no ill will or anything based on that debate.
I just felt not enough people knew this was uncharacteristic of most who label themselves as such.

Learning why we take the positions we do on this topic can only increase our mutual understanding.
I respect all positions on the subject, however I don't understand much of the decision-making.

I appreciate these replies, ya'll have helped me clear up some misunderstandings about agnostics.
Thanks!
Keep em coming if you have any further inquiries.

Yes, I meant the adjective and not the noun. I'm still looking for the verb But fair enough.

But taking the definition you cite, I think saying you're "undecided" on the specific question about whether God exists fits like a glove. You said you are not undecided about "religion". According to the definition, religion is not mentioned.

The diagram from the debate was *specifically* addressing the existence of God and not whether any religion is a waste of time.

Faith is the blind alliegience to a way of thinking... Hebrews 11:1 says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." I've been promised eternal life and I definitely hope for it and I do my best to continue in this conviction. I still don't see where "blindness" is required here at all.

You either believe that Jesus lived and died for your sins, or you do not. I do believe that, but what if the Apostles made it up? I don't think they did and I can make the case for why I think they were right on the money but I wasn't there and neither were you. If this is just your way of telling me that to be a Xian I have to check my brain at the door then there's not a whole lot more discuss.

Christianity does not allow you to say "well maybe he did. I'll go to church to be on the safe side." Says you? Based on what?

You have to firmly believe this to gain access into heaven. Again, what texts Xian or otherwise are you getting this from? Got a chapter and verse for any of that?

[edit]I'm not real familiar with you yet and so I thought I had better put this bit in to make sure that you know none of what I just said has any malice. I've seen people take intellectual challenges totally wrong too many times around here and thought it might be good to point that out. [/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 08-26-2002).]

Hmm....

Atheism a religion? I think not...

Click here and here. There does that ease your perception?

I am atheist, I don't believe in any establishment of "god," mind you. Calling atheism a religion is like calling black white, it's a total contradiction/oxymoron mind you. Did you fully read the entire formal debate? Did you see bugs diagram? Atheism can't be a religion by any means, because neither is theism which is the belief of "God." Examples of a religion would be Christianity or Bhudism, which are both based on theistical beliefs, but theism nor atheism or polytheism nor monotheism is a religion by any means, they are simply words that describe your beliefs in God/Religion.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

first i'll reply to Insider.

Click here and here. There does that ease your perception?
That it does, by strengthening my argument. (and my clicking finger.)

Examples of a religion would be Christianity or Bhudism, which are both based on theistical beliefs, but theism nor atheism or polytheism nor monotheism is a religion by any means, they are simply words that describe your beliefs in God/Religion.
First, atheism, polytheism, and monotheism are types of religions (no god, many gods, one god), however atheism hasn't split off into cults yet as to establish more dogma related to it, so it can be described as a religion just like Judaism could've been called monotheism when it was the only one-god religion game in town.

Secondly, you obviously know nothing of Buddhism, as it has no God per se.
And therefore cannot be called a theistic religion.
It does however say the afterlife is only achieved through nirvana which is the ultimate enlightenment.
This is called sanctioning the view of the supernatural (that which makes a religion).
It is a restriction of supernatural views into a set of rules.
It would be called a theory if it were not worshipped as truth, then it is called religion.

Atheism is a religion because it professes to know the true ultimate reality just like every other religion.
Except it professes to know there is either no supernatural, or there is but it has no God, or both.
This is a restriction of supernatural views, Insider. Get it now?

I have already defined "religion". I use webster's dictionary. It is the most comprehensive on the english language. Please try it out --> m-w.com

Next time try reading all the posts before posting Insider.

Now onto Bugimus.

Yes, I meant the adjective and not the noun. I'm still looking for the verb But fair enough.
Doh! yes, I meant adjective.

I think saying you're "undecided" on the specific question about whether God exists fits like a glove. You said you are not undecided about "religion". According to the definition, religion is not mentioned.
Read the definition more carefully please.
Do you not define religion as that which restricts the view of ultimate reality?
It is defined as such in the aformentioned dictionary. This is the definition i hold as well.

I do believe that, but what if the Apostles made it up? I don't think they did and I can make the case for why I think they were right on the money but I wasn't there and neither were you.
You emboldened a sentence that just strengthened my point!
It is unknowable, you have no knowledge of whether it is true or not because you were not there.
You say you believe it, but wonder if the apostles made it up.
Basically you are saying you are Christian until proven wrong.


Christianity does not allow you to say "well maybe he did. I'll go to church to be on the safe side." Says you? Based on what?
Again, what texts Xian or otherwise are you getting this from? Got a chapter and verse for any of that?
Well only the most memorable of them all. John 3:16-18
[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Going to church has nothing to do with the Christianity.
Belief in Jesus as your savior is the only thing that will save you from God's condemnation.
Saying you could be wrong is one thing, but saying Judaism might be right is like saying Jesus was no more than a heretic.
Would that get you into heaven based on the verses above? I don't think so.

I went to baptist church many years and this is what they taught.

Listen, I'm not a man angry at religion, I am just a man engrossed by logic.
I cannot see the logic some poeple have in choosing one religion over another when proof is not evident in any of them.
I even own "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.
I've studied many religions from Baalism to Hinduism to Shinto, and none are compelling enough to sway me into sanctioning my thoughts of the supernatural unknown.



[This message has been edited by genis (edited 08-26-2002).]

Dude its a known literate paradox that atheism is not a religion.

edit: nirvana is that state of wanting nothing, which wouldnt be that enlighting to me.

[This message has been edited by InSiDeR (edited 08-26-2002).]

a paradox that can read? how interesting.

please keep going with your knowledge of Buddhism, it really is astonishing.

You have great patience genis.

Well, I don't want to seem like I jumped in, shot my mouth off and scampered off into the halls of the asylum... I've been busy, but should be done with work soon. So long as nobody minds, I've got a reply coming. And even if somebody does mind, it's still coming....

Insider: Rather than saying that "Atheism isn't a religion simply because it isn't"(you're begging the question, or at the very least appealing to the masses to support something you haven't yet proven) Offer some support - logical, based on definition, etc...
Merely appealing to something as a "known" fact probably won't work when those you are addressing have already voiced a contrary opinion. Just a thought

"I have this disease late at night sometimes, involving alcohol and the telephone."
- Kurt Vonnegut

[This message has been edited by cpkdog (edited 08-27-2002).]

Hrm. Well genis, thanks for the light slam. It was invigorating Sorry for spending too much time on general relativism, "I do believe there is a spoon, okay?" hehe. aight. I hope that you can understand my focus based on the fact that we haven't as of yet defined our terms and I didn't have all that much to assume that you weren't espousing it. Also sorry for the tri-post, I really should've condensed them into one. Also, I wasn't attempting to lump Stalin, Hitler etc...into the category of agnostics, something more along the lines of self-serving relativists, nihilists, etc... Basically, carrying through on a self-defined set of morals fairly consitently. No doubt others have done the same without holocaustic results, but the question remains for all of them: who's to say they were wrong? Who's to say they were right? Without some sort of absolute, acknowledged moral referent, "everything is meaningless"(to quote the author of Ecclesiastes) My apologies for being vauge.

I also think that it might be beneficial to define some terms, agnostic having been defined in that you consider yourself to be an agnostic(noun) when it comes to conclusive statements on God, and that you are most definitely not agnostic(adj) when it comes to things like, for example "the spoon." Hoping I got that right..... I think I should also define what I was meaning when I said religion, especially since I accused you, and everybody else in the history of mankind as being such. I too would like to appeal to Webster. While not everyone is part of a religion proper, or for that matter appeals to a codified dogma, I do believe that everyone is "religious" along the lines that religious can be defined in part as :

"relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity "

and for religion:

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

In this case, your ultimate reality seems to be defined primarily by experience, I hope that attributing some sort of methodological naturalism to you isn't fallacious. It seems to me, that even in an epistemology based on experience, there is still an acknowledgement of an ultimate reality, to which devotion(intentional or otherwise) in action is unavoidable. I would also argue that everyone holds to what they percieve as truth by faith. The last 1500 times I hit the "a" key, it made an "a." This causes me to believe, with a justified faith that it will create an "a" the next time I hit it based on the compelling evidence that I have observed in all my previous a-hittings. Do I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is always true of this "a" key, or indeed of all "a" keys? No. But this lack of ultimate certainty does not in and of itself weaken my faith in the "a" key. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Phew, just checking

The other thing about which I am muddled is how you claim to not be denouncing other's beliefs.
No one can know if there is or is not a god.
This is not a statement that fits neatly alongside many other worldviews. It is mutually exclusive to both Theism and Atheism. It carries with it an implied denouncement.
Therefore i am not denouncing their belief as it pertains to their vision of a creator or overseer, I am denouncing their practice of denunciation of others' beliefs.
And what if my belief of a creator necessitates the denouncement of the beliefs of others? (Denouncement not meaning the heavy-handed attempt to eradicate all opinion, but rather the logical necessity of mutual exclusivity that you also seem to affirm.)
I do not denounce them, as an agnostic I do not denounce anything, I believe all to be a possibility.
When taken with your statement on the unknowability of God, it would seem that you are saying all is possible....except for the possibility that one can know that there is or isn't a God. If I may take the liberty then, the implication of your statement is that anything is possible, except for Theism or Atheism "Sounds like a constrained view of the supernatural to me... how bout you?"

You have to believe what you believe.
Lucky for you there is choice in all that is believed.
Yes, sorry about that, I wasn't attempting to say that personal belief and opinion is in some way immutable. My bad.

Agnostics are of course, not without knowledge altogether, how else would we have come up with such a nifty name for ourselves?
This is the most entertaining thing I'd seen all day. hehe.

A knowledge which could be said to fly in the face of a large portion of human experience.
it could. But you don't seem to be saying it.
Allow me to correct my previous error....I am saying it The reason I brought up the ludicrousness of making a statement about all of humanities capabilities, or indeed that of God was not because I claim to know it, but because it still seems to me that you are. No one can know if there is or is not a god. Not trying to beat a dead horse here, just still not satisfied with the answer.

within the realm of religion, that being which is unknown, where truth does not exist as a fact
This seems to be a redefining of religion that is wholly unfair. Kind of a poisoning of the well so to speak.

your syllogism practice has ended, grasshopper, now it is time for you to hone your craft in the real world.
go forth and roam the countryside, analyzing all speech for syllogisms and bring wonderful sleep to the villages.
The second most entertaining thing I've read all day, and the most belittling. It hurts so good.....
In response, I would like you to confront my supposedly sophomoric syllogism, which I will attempt to expand to a plain-language argument...

Your statement "No one can know if there is or is not a god." is a statement that assumes something about all men and God alike. I will agree with an qualified version of this statement. "No man can know God on his own." But to say that God cannot be known? A 5-year-old stuck in a well can't reach those at the top. Does this mean that he can't get out? Most definitely not. Those at the top may be able to reach him. Just because I cannot reach God on my own steam doesn't mean that he can't reach me with a mere thought. Seperate from this analogy any preconception of God, god, or gods that you might have, no matter how laughable the existence of a supreme Being might be to you, the analogy works. This is in stark contrast to my understanding of Allah and other deities which possess a complete transendence. Kind of off-topic, Here's a question I've never had a halfway-satisfactory answer to. If Allah is utterly transcendent, how does he commune with Muhammed, his prophet? Not a challenge, just a question to someone who might know more than I of Islam. Anyway, I hope that wasn't too much of a ramble, and that I didn't inadvertently step on too many toes.

Eagerly awaiting another slam.....

(BTW, is anyone else enjoying this as much as I am?)

"I have this disease late at night sometimes, involving alcohol and the telephone."
- Kurt Vonnegut

[This message has been edited by cpkdog (edited 08-27-2002).]

I gave a logical and a detailed definition, I am not gonna repeat it I spelled it out for him literally, now he is just being a smartass.

[This message has been edited by InSiDeR (edited 08-27-2002).]

"I don't believe in any establishment of "god," mind you. Calling atheism a religion is like calling black white, it's a total contradiction/oxymoron mind you."

Okay. This defines what you believe Atheism to be, and I agree with you, that's what it is. However, you said nothing substantive there about religion or being religious. As I see it, the problem here may have to do with the definition of "religion."

but theism nor atheism or polytheism nor monotheism is a religion by any means, they are simply words that describe your beliefs in God/Religion.
There is some truth to this, but it's not enough to just say that. I know both presbyterians and catholics who are professing atheists.
You seem to be referring to organized religions. That's not especially what I was meaning or understood the term as it was being used here. I wasn't meaning to be a smartass. My apologies.

If I might offer a definition of religion in part as I was intending to define it:
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

"relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity "
You have no system of beliefs? You believe in no ultimate reality? If so, I can't be wrong, you can't be right, and you can't be insulted. You obviously have a theology(God does not exist), and I would assume that you live your life with a notion of right and wrong, up and down, this proves that. In this, you appeal to an ultimate reality informed by a personal dogma. In that, I would define you as religious. As well as the rest of humanity.

Dude its a known literate paradox that atheism is not a religion.
This says absolutely nothing, and does it rather poorly. My recommendation had more to do with this post of yours in which you do nothing more than appeal to that which you are attempting to prove. And my point about a further definition of religion being required in light of the fact that you are merely repeating an assertion that your definition is the correct one to at least 2 people who have already disagreed with you. I would enjoy seeing your proofs for what a religion is, and why Atheism doesn't fit in anywhere.

-+edited for removal of some smart-assness, as well as for lucidity+-

[This message has been edited by cpkdog (edited 08-27-2002).]

Alright all I know is I was in the debate, I did my research, now go do yours ok?

Sorry that I didn't get the post as it stands in it's edited form up sooner InSiDeR. I assure you, I don't claim to be an expert on this or any other branch of philosophy. I have however "done my research", and fully intend to do more of it, be it in debate, personal study, or at school where I will be returning in a week to finish my degree in humanities, philosophy and religion. Of course I am rather biased towards the Christian viewpoint since I am a flawed, though committed believer of it. Which is why I have to try very hard not to get overtly combatative after your rather juvenile statements about "the stupid fucking stereo-typical, brainwashed, hypocritical, jesus freaks had to bitch about something they can't even begin to understand." in the alone in the dark thread. I've been well educated in the theory of Evolution as well as many forms of Creationism. Again, I apologize. Hoping this doesn't bog the thread down with assness..........

[This message has been edited by cpkdog (edited 08-27-2002).]

I don't consider myself an expert (yet) but for a 14 year old I think I know damn well more than the majority of the fucking world.

As Han Solo reminded Luke after blowing up his first tie fighter... "Great kid! Don't get cocky!"

...and, yes, I am also enjoying this thread.

oh wow... look at all the posts.

~sighs~

man... this is alot of work... I'll try to get to these tomorrow.

later on.

Yes, but just because somebody makes a post doesn't mean you *have* to reply. Many a time have I hit the back button on my browser instead of clicking the "Submit Reply" button

*sigh*

quote:

---

but for a 14 year old I think I know damn well more than the majority of the fucking world

---

Oh, the frivolousness of youth...when you finally get to the point where you know you know actually very little...but believe in much...

what exactly are you insinuating ws?

I believe he's insinuating that you were incorrect. I, for one, think that you need to show a little more respect towards your elders, and state your opinions more humbly, because, unfortunately, your actions show that you are not quite as intelligent as you claim.

Ok, lemme rephrase... Well translate a little more...

I am assuming, that I know more about what I am talking about than the church go'ers who haven't looked at it from a scientific approach, by that I mean an independant thought outside the narrow minded christians.

And yes, when you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME ass

once there was a man who came into possession of a donkey by way of inheritance

while taking the donkey home, he came upon a hole in the ground

where he became confused

Hey Everybody!
Look at my sig!

It is big and ugly!! Yay!

You might want to visit the Sig section and have that checked... does it hurt?

hurts too bad bugimus... and now for my replies. (only to cpkdog though.)

In this case, your ultimate reality seems to be defined primarily by experience
You have me confused with Bugimus' friend who was an agnostic proclaiming to be an atheist.
He talked of how he would only acknowledge a god if something big floated over his head and a loud cosmic voice boomed at him.
Get this, my contention is I could never and will never be able to know the existence of something so abstract as an ultimate reality.

The human comprehension is capable of understanding such immense layers of abstraction, that even if something calling himself God, showed me a heaven, turned water into wine, and took care of all of my university parking tickets, that I still could not know that was actually THE God, or even a facet of our ultimate reality.

Perhaps it was Satan himself trying to trick me. Perhaps it was Loki, because the Norse were right. Perhaps I'm trapped in a computer simulation run by robots that just use me as a copper-top.

Ultimate reality is an incomprehensible subject, made possible by our absurdly well-defined ability to comprehend the abstract.
It's like trying to comprehend a 4th dimension.

I am muddled is how you claim to not be denouncing other's beliefs.
You're right, I am inherently denouncing their beliefs.
Because they're beliefs are grounded in faith.
my bad.
I should've said, "I'm not saying they couldn't be right, but I am saying they can't know they are right."
Which they all do, because they must.. it is a rule of faith.

I do not denounce them, as an agnostic I do not denounce anything, I believe all to be a possibility.
When taken with your statement on the unknowability of God, it would seem that you are saying all is possible
Like I've said many times before...
within the realm of the unknown, which is where religion and all beliefs about ultimate reality reside.
Yeeshama geeshama.

except for the possibility that one can know that there is or isn't a God.
If I may take the liberty then, the implication of your statement is that anything is possible, except for Theism or Atheism "Sounds like a constrained view of the supernatural to me... how bout you?"
When i said "one", did I say "one who art in the kingdom of heaven, amen?" No.
When i said "one" I was referring to those in our reality, which we just call "reality".
It's 3-dimensional, involves alot of bellyaching, and is just chock full of 14yr olds who get bent out of shape fairly easily.
Maybe you've heard of it?

You see, my contention is that I may not know art, but I know people.
And as I argued above, ultimate reality (AKA that abstract thought involving perhaps a supreme being) is incomprehensible.
And yes, perhaps i do not know exactly what the human mind is capable of, but unless something ratchets (*cough*brainwashes*hack*) our noggins down into a set way of thinking without abstraction (*cough*organizedreligion*cough*) we'll always have that 2nd-guess capability.
We truly won't know till (if) we get there, cause then whatever makes it possible to realize ultimate reality will (hopefully) be given (back?) to us.

As a christian, do you portend to know the real ultimate reality... the real outcome of death... the actual workings of the afterlife? Yes.
Personally? No.
And what do you base these things upon? A book, which retells stories from people who know of these things.
SO you base all of your thoughts about an ultimate reality on others? Yes.
Many books and oral stories have been written or passed down on this same subject. What makes them wrong and yours right? faith.
What makes you believe those people knew absolutely/without a doubt they were correct? faith.
Are you afraid you have to pick or something horrible will happen in the afterlife?
What if you picked wrong?
What if none were right?
What if you never heard of the right one?

within the realm of religion, that being which is unknown, where truth does not exist as a fact
This seems to be a redefining of religion that is wholly unfair. Kind of a poisoning of the well so to speak.
Unfair to whom?
The realm of religion is ultimate reality, which is the unknown.
Can truth (that which is known as fact) hold fort in the unknown? Uh... no.

Your statement "No one can know if there is or is not a god." is a statement that assumes something about all men and God alike. I will agree with an qualified version of this statement. "No man can know God on his own."
This is in no way qualified to replace my sentence, which was my point with your first syllogism.
Stop putting words in my mouth or more Kung-Fu references may be espoused in your general direction.
You have been warned!

Kind of off-topic, Here's a question I've never had a halfway-satisfactory answer to. If Allah is utterly transcendent, how does he commune with Muhammed, his prophet?
If the jews were led to believe they were God's chosen people, then Jesus comes along, quoting a wholly vague prophecy from Isaiah and says the only way to God was through him, replaces the 10 commandments with 2, and dumps over their cointable, do you really blame the jews for not believing him?

My point being: don't start your crazed religious nitpickings in here.
Every religion has contradictions and a flawed history. Just read the KJV, then the NIV.
That may open your eyes a bit.

Eagerly awaiting another slam.....
You? but Insider is so much easier.

(BTW, is anyone else enjoying this as much as I am?)
I was... but it seems to have boiled down into yet another semantics debate.
Just like every serious religious discussion ever.

This is probably my last post in this topic, unless anything other than semantics comes into it.
School year's started again, ya know.

genis, I'm sorry that I mistook you for someone willing to discuss things with an open mind. After that last post it seems pretty clear to me you just want to declare to us the way things are. So since you are done with this thread, I think I'll follow your lead.

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugimus, I don't understand your problem.

If you'd care to elaborate. . .

Ok, I've been following this with mild interest until now. Though, as you say Genis, this was 'inspired' by the formal debate, and although it does seem that your debating skills are quite formidable, my esteemed college Bugs actually has a point - that you have 'decided'...i.e. that you are not open to really disscussing this, but are merely debating the point.

This, in particular

quote:

---

I disagree with Agnostics being perpetually described as "undecided".

---

Ok, though one might tend to disagree on this, I can accept that...until this

quote:

---

i do not denounce them, as an agnostic i do not denounce anything, i believe all to be a possibility.

---

, which would suggest that you have decided to believe that anything is possible. Many might say that this is a in reality a state of being undecided. Then you say

quote:

---

Ultimate reality is an incomprehensible subject, made possible by our absurdly well-defined ability to comprehend the abstract.
It's like trying to comprehend a 4th dimension.

---

Here it seems that you are implying that no-one is capable of understanding it...based on what? Where are your facts? By saying 'Ultimate reality is an incomprehensible subject', you are stating a fact (an absolute) but is it really? Though you and I may not be able to grasp it, maybe someone else can? You hint at this in the following

quote:

---

You see, my contention is that I may not know art, but I know people.
And as I argued above, ultimate reality (AKA that abstract thought involving perhaps a supreme being) is incomprehensible.
And yes, perhaps i do not know exactly what the human mind is capable of, but unless something ratchets (*cough*brainwashes*hack*) our noggins down into a set way of thinking without abstraction (*cough*organizedreligion*cough*) we'll always have that 2nd-guess capability.
We truly won't know till (if) we get there, cause then whatever makes it possible to realize ultimate reality will (hopefully) be given (back?) to us.

---

in this part 'yes, perhaps i do not know exactly what the human mind is capable of'.

Ok...and then to sum things up, you say

quote:

---

... but it seems to have boiled down into yet another semantics debate.
Just like every serious religious discussion ever.

---

However, in the formal debate, this is not the case. Rather, the formal debate is where one attempts to provide a point(s) and then to back these points (opinions, facts, whatever) up with references, etc. The formal debate is not an attempt to actually 'prove' anything, but merely to see who can present their side of the debate better...an exercise in logic and, well, debating skills.

So, either A) The formal debate is not serious... or B) You shouldn't be speaking in absolutes...

Thank you for the...discussion...

I was not 'inspired' by the formal debate into making my own formal debate.
I was inspired by a graphic in the formal debate which described Agnostics as 'undecided'.
This led me to create my own topic which clarified that assumption that many people have about Agnostics and Agnosticism.

Then I took a stab at Atheism by calling it a religion, which I believe it to be, based on my understanding of religion as a mindset (not an organized worshipping of a Deity, insider.)

So really the only people qualified to debate with me in this topic was Atheists arguing with my view of their religion, or those who have a problem with my definition of Agnostics or Agnosticism.

What I got was cpkdog, who felt my theories on the supernatural somehow melded with our current reality. This is where the semantics started, although it wasn't an argument over a definition but the mistaken meaning when taken out of context.
You see, cpkdog... and now Webshaman... thought my statements on possibilites and absolutes, the true and false, right and wrong, related to everything (supernatural or otherwise) rather than just the supernatural realm, which was their intended target.
This was unexpected but understandable.
The replies all came from those of the "decided".
And in the "decided" demographic, the supernatural and reality are formed into one understanding.
In this way, apparently the bottleneck in understanding my argument was the idea that the supernatural was indeed unknown. Meaning, not one damn thing is truly known about it.

which would suggest that you have decided to believe that anything is possible. Many might say that this is a in reality a state of being undecided.
See? This ^^ is what I'm talking about. My statements are targeted toward the unknown when I am talking about religion. Anything is possible in the supernatural realm. Why? Because it is unknown.
The aliens COULD HAVE built the pyramids. It is POSSIBLE. Because we don't know for a fact, who built them or how.
See how all things are possible in the unknown?
God could be or not be, could have 3 heads of one, could be a Klingon. IT'S POSSIBLE.

I am not 'undecided' cause that would imply I believe 'decision' on narrowing down of the unknown to be possible. Which I most certainly do not.
I cited reason for this in my last reply to cpkdog.
That applies to me most certainly, I don't know .. maybe I AM the only one who has this ability to understand many many layers of abstraction, but I doubt it.

Now do you see how I am not 'undecided'.
This is the ONLY thing I would even remotely care to get across.
I don't want to convert anyone, I'm not out to prove you wrong.
Too many people have been "in for too long" and can't accept my way of thinking. (That was another Matrix reference by the way.)

By saying 'Ultimate reality is an incomprehensible subject', you are stating a fact (an absolute) but is it really? Though you and I may not be able to grasp it, maybe someone else can?
You are right, maybe someone else can. That would be incredible indeed.
But does that person pick your religion for you?
Is there absolutely anything that person can convey to you that will make you believe in one SET and ABSOLUTE way of thinking about the unknown?
You are the final decision on your own religion.
And if you can base that decision on the thoughts of others fine.
It's only ultimate reality, that which defines what is and was and forever will be, why shouldn't you trust it to someone else?
But who? and why them?
I gave the examples of how my abstract thinking could convince me not to take that thinking seriously, no matter what something or someone shows or does for me.

Here's the biggest question:
Why did you choose your religion?
Gotta be honest with yourself.
Was it for selfish reasons, or because you KNOW the exact makings and workings of our ultimate reality, and the supernatural?

The formal debate is not an attempt to actually 'prove' anything
Well I didn't want to start a formal debate, and I AM out to prove one thing.
I'm out to prove Agnostics are not undecided. That's it.
Like I said I'm not out to prove you wrong. I'm out to defend my position.
If you feel that I have proved you wrong (this I've never actually SEEN happen) while defending my position then that's your prerogative.

I couldn't care less if someone got on my bandwagon.
Doesn't make my band sound any more or less sweet to me.

QUOTE - "Hmm....

Atheism a religion? I think not...


I am atheist, I don't believe in any establishment of "god," mind you. Calling atheism a religion is like calling black white, it's a total contradiction/oxymoron mind you. Did you fully read the entire formal debate? Did you see bugs diagram? Atheism can't be a religion by any means, because neither is theism which is the belief of "God." Examples of a religion would be Christianity or Bhudism, which are both based on theistical beliefs, but theism nor atheism or polytheism nor monotheism is a religion by any means, they are simply words that describe your beliefs in God/Religion." - QUOTE by InSiDeR on 08-26-2002 04:51 AM

I thought interesting that you used black as your metaphor for Atheism not being a religion. You are wrong, but black is the perfect example for Atheism. Black is the absence of color (White is the presence of all colors) just as Atheism is the absence of belief in a greater supreme being. I found this a while back while researching this very subject.

QUOTE - "Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.
Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion. This allows them to spread their Atheistic beliefs freely in societies which insist on "separation of church and state."
But this is like saying that "black," (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color. The car I drive is a big, old Chevrolet, whose color is black. In common practice throughout the world, "black" is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, "Atheism" is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary." - QUOTE by Rev. Bill McGinnis, Editor INTERNET DAILY CHAPEL www.InternetDailyChapel.org


Saying Atheism is not a religion is simple hair splitting designed to allow Atheist to spread their doctrine in schools and public places while excluding any other doctrine under seperation of church and state.

Seperation of church and state is NOT what the 2nd amendment says. This is EXACTLY what it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

This can be broken down into two parts.
A) Establishment of religion. - This prohibits the government from creating a state sponsored religion, such as the Church of England, which many of the founding fathers (or their ancestors) came to America to get away from. Saying "God Bless America" or "In God We Trust" does NOT violate this. No one particular religion is elevated to the level of state religion. You can define God how YOU wish. If your god is Satan the phrase still fits. If your god is YOU it still fits. I'll define it my way.
B) Freedom to worship. - You are free to worship your dog if you wish, with few restriction (human sacrifice, child molestation, etc.).

Atheism is a religion (of lacking) just as black is a color despite it actually being an absence of color.




How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could get welfare?

wow! from 2002....

heh, just a little late.

Outdated argument aside, your anaology is severely flawed KaosKlerik.

For starters, in your fantastically vague and ignorant quote above, the car in question is not actually black. It is a color which we have commonloy accepted - by it's darkness and low saturation - that would name black. True black is the absense of color, which would essentially mean an absence of light. A paint color called black, and a total lack of color are two immensely different things.

As for the religion part of it -
Certainly, there are those who are atheists, and who build a pseudo-religion on top of that belief. These people could reasonbaly be referred to as religious atheists, if yo ulike.

That does not make atheism a religion. And it's not a matter of splitting hairs - it is a huge and significant distinction.

I don't beleive in god. I am an atheist. That is where it stops. There is no set of beliefs which must then follow. There is no "atheist dogma" that I adhere to.

A simple belief in regard to whether or not there is a god is not in any way a religion. Religion is a specific set of beliefs regarding - not whether or not a diety exists - but what that diety expects from you, how to behave accordingly, and what your rewards or punishments will be based on that.

Atheism, being a simple word to describe a belief that there is no such thing as a god, cannot posibly carry such a conotation. To use the word atheism to describe a pseudo-religion which is based - in part - on the idea that there is no god (and to then attempt to hold all atheists, and the term atheisim itself accountable to that misnomer) is vastly ignorant.

It's like saying that anyone who beleives in god is a Muslim. =)