Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 06:34 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Because you hold to that 'guess' a little too dearly for it to be called a 'guess' in colloquial English. When people have a strong emotional attachement to such a 'guess', when it's important to them, it's called a belief. A guess is something more trivial, peripheral to one's intellectual constructs. A belief is more central.


I think you are wrong on that, Olivier. Especially in the areas of discussions about the true nature of REALITY...and even more especially in the area of whether or not a GOD exists.

If you could get past any disagreements we've had...and any animosity you might hold for me...we could discuss this at length...and I think you might see a bit more value in what I am saying about the use of the words "believe" and "belief."

Can you?
Ionus
 
  1  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 07:08 am
@argome321,
Quote:
I have had conversation with others who know exactly what I am talking about
What about the conversations here with people who dont know what you are talking about ? I'm Agnostic and I have no belief either way .
Quote:
many definitions are ambiguous at best concerning this topic
Not according to you though, you have a very clear idea of what an Agnostic is...

Quote:
So personally I don't care what any particular book in print says. Printed books can be wrong also. And language evolves constantly. Language is fluid.
Can you be wrong on this point ?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 07:11 am
@layman,
You constructed a situation where you need to know something for sheer survival. That situation is very different from your feeling of being bothered by other people's certainties, a feeling which seems to burden you unnecessarily.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 07:24 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
If you could get past any disagreements we've had...and any animosity you might hold for me...we could discuss this at length...and I think you might see a bit more value in what I am saying about the use of the words "believe" and "belief."

Sorry, it has nothing to do with you. Words for me are not magical, they don't have the power to change reality. I respect the right to self-labelling though, so you're welcome to call your beliefs anyway you'd like to call them.

Maybe try that discussion with layman. He seems to like semantics.
Ionus
 
  1  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 07:26 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
He seems to like semantics.
You DO realise it is impossible to have semantics when talking about the meaning of words ?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 07:28 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
If you could get past any disagreements we've had...and any animosity you might hold for me...we could discuss this at length...and I think you might see a bit more value in what I am saying about the use of the words "believe" and "belief."

Sorry, it has nothing to do with you. Words for me are not magical, they don't have the power to change reality. I respect the right to self-labelling though, so you're welcome to call your beliefs anyway you'd like to call them.

Maybe try that discussion with layman. He seems to like semantics.


Okay, I accept your rejection of my request.

At least we can agree that you can call your guesses "beliefs" if you choose...even though that mostly is done in discussions about the existence or non-existence of gods merely to give the guesses a gravitas they do not deserve.

Olivier5
 
  1  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 07:56 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
At least we can agree that you can call your guesses "beliefs" if you choose...

And I can even call yours as such... At least the ones to which you give "a gravitas they do not deserve". :-)
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 08:21 am
@Olivier5,
None of my guesses deserve gravitas, Olivier. I acknowledge that. That, in fact, is why I like to refer to them as guesses...rather than dress them up as "beliefs."

When disguised as "beliefs"...people start demanding respect for their guesses...demand that others be considerate and respectful toward them.

Guesses don't deserve it!

That's the reason I was trying for the discussion.
Wink
ossobuco
 
  2  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 08:37 am
As the pages speedily run on by, I want to add to my comment of a short time but many pages ago that I don't think the agnostic people here are trolls. Trolls, to me, mean to disrupt or fully zap threads. What I didn't add, though, is that great disruption has been the off and on result of their discourtesy to the thread intent, which happens to still be operative.

It would be appreciated if all who enjoy parsing word meanings about belief or non belief, rather like parsing parsley, flooding page after page, should start your own thread.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 09:10 am
@ossobuco,
Once again, Ossobuco...with all the respect in the world...if you were to read the first week of posts in this thread...IN FACT, if you were to read over the first DAY of posts in this thread...you will see that discussions of what is meant by atheist and what is meant by agnostics and what it means to be a theist...all were discussed...by several people...INCLUDING LittleK.

You participated.

The thread is open...and is more active than any thread right now in the entire forum.

Why try to close it down? Why not welcome discussion on issues that obviously have not been settled...and that people obviously still have strong feelings about?

After 600 pages, what more do you have to say about how terrible it is to be an atheist in today's world...that cannot be said despite what everyone else is discussing?

There is no discourtesy whatever to LittleK here...in using a thread started years ago to have active, and for the most part, reasonably courteous discussion about issues relating to atheism (and those other things)...we are actually honoring her...not being discourteous.

There was disagreement about "the intent" of the thread on that very first day !

Allow us discuss what we want to discuss. Join in...or stay out...as you choose. But why are you trying to get us to leave?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 09:16 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
That's the reason I was trying for the discussion.

Been there, done that... Try with the newcomer.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 09:25 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
more active than any thread

Laughing
You call this "active" !
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 09:29 am
@fresco,
Yeah.

And you?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  3  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 09:29 am
@Frank Apisa,
I'm not trying to get you to leave. I'm trying to have you parsers not deflect the intent of the thread. I'm not against digressions of the fairly short variety, I make them myself all the time, but the flooding is absurd.

I figure agnostics would have occasional real life dealings with the very religious too. With this miasma of non belief parsing going on ad infinitum, it's a little tough to actually talk here about real life situations some of us have, or have had, the point of the thread, personal stories.
fresco
 
  3  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 09:59 am
@ossobuco,
I don't know whether I have said this on this particular thread. In response to your request....
....what my label "atheist" means to me is not about a futile existential debate with believers. It has significance .....
1. rationalizing my attendance at religious ceremonies such as
weddings and funerals "for the sake of others". I put up with the mumbo-jumbo so as to not "rock the boat".
and
2. as a some-time educator of children, coming to terms with the potentially pernicious conditioning which I feel is detrimental to the progress of my charges in becoming equipped for "the modern world".

Obviously there are no simplistic "answers" to what I see as at best a socially conditioned palliative manifesting in its multiple forms over most of humanity. Nor do I think that so-called "atheistic" totalitarian regimes are any better than theocracies. They merely substitute terrestrial absolutism for celestial absolutism.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 11:29 am
@fresco,
Yes, that's just the type of thing: the matter of boat rocking, coming to terms, saving one's job sanity...

0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 01:57 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
...that great disruption has been the off and on result of their discourtesy to the thread intent, which happens to still be operative.


Jo, I haven't read this thread. I did read the first post. And for the life of me I can't see where it expresses the intent that you and Beth impute to it.

Since I can't see it, tell me: what IS the intent of this thread, as you see it? Is it supposed to be a thread where atheists complain about their mistreatment, and then receive sympathetic support and encouragement from "other atheists?" Is that the idea?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 03:20 pm
What about the problem of one atheist criticizing another? What's up with that? Don't atheists get enough grief from the religious right without having to put up with that?

AtheistTV, after a lot of promotional fanfare from American Atheist, made it's debut last May. You would think this would be an event that was encouraged and approved of by other atheists, yet an atheist reviewer from the liberal "Salon" panned it. He wrote a review entitled: "I spent a day watching AtheistTV — and it was horrifying." The traitorous dog had the temerity to say such things as:

Quote:
And yet after watching four hours of its programming and even despite my own lack of religious belief, I find it hard to imagine that even a casual nonbeliever would tune in, let alone someone on the fence about the existence of a higher power.

AtheistTV adheres to nasty stereotypes about atheism — smugness, gleeful disregard for others’ beliefs — to a degree that’s close to unwatchable.

Co-host Matt Dillahunty, wearing a black Hawaiian-style shirt decorated with flames and infinity symbols, [said] "If you know why your God is so stupid, feel free to call us."

AtheistTV frames atheism as a perpetual reaction against a conquering force. And that reaction isn’t reasoned debate....

The Atheist Experience’s” new co-host, introducing today’s topic: “I’m talking again about the failures of Christianity. I’m just scratching the surface — a lot of failure! So much fail. But today I’m going to talk about Christianity’s dependence on ignorance. Christianity requires ignorance — and con games require ignorance too."

I shut it off. A game of three-card-monte may be frustrating, but one can keep walking by. A person shouting at you on the subway is far more irritating.


http://www.salon.com/2014/08/09/i_spent_a_day_watching_atheisttv_and_it_was_horrifying/

Why doesn't he just confine his complaints about "irritation" to the stupid christians, I ask ya? Doesn't he know how hurtful his attitude can be to his fellow atheists?
hingehead
 
  1  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 03:36 pm
@layman,
Quote:
What about the problem of one atheist criticizing another? What's up with that?


This is a chronically stupid/ignorant/self-serving/laughable statement.

Atheists are not united by anything other than their disbelief in the existence of gods based on available evidence.

Would you say "What about the problem of one person who doesn't believe in Santa Clause criticizing another? What's up with that?

I know it suits your cognitive dissonance to think of atheists as a bloc, a neo-religion, but they aren't.
layman
 
  1  
Tue 24 Mar, 2015 03:45 pm
@layman,
To it's credit, at least the always reliable New York Times showed that it understood that the real victims are atheists, not christians:

Quote:
Atheists are angry, and watch out, because now they have a television channel...At a party on Tuesday night celebrating the premiere, David Silverman, president of American Atheists, described a channel that...will “provide a breadth of content, from science to politics to comedy, all centered around our common freedom from religion.”

...If he sounds peeved, well, it’s hard being an atheist in the United States, where plenty of people behave in decidedly un-Christian ways, but to speak ill of Christianity or other religions can be career-ending....So expect a fair amount of bluntness when Atheist TV gets rolling.

“Atheist TV is live,” he said, “and it’s going to stay live, 24/7, until the sun burns out.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/02/arts/television/atheist-tv-has-its-premiere-on-roku-and-online.html

Now, that's more like it, eh!?
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 612
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 06:40:09