16
   

Religious and Atheist.

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 09:55 am
@igm,

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

If I have to be categorized...I am an agnostic.


Is that category to do with knowledge/lack of knowledge about gods or belief/ lack of belief in gods, both or neither?


Your question is a mess. Fix it...and I will attempt to enlighten you.

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

I am willing to accept...non-theist.


How is your term non-theist different from the term atheist?
[/quote]

An atheist is an atheist...and a non-theist is a non-theist.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 09:56 am
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:

I don't agree with that at all Frank. Set's explanation is quite clear. Igm is saying the same thing. Simple is good and in this case I think accurate. You just don't want to identify with the term. That doesn't mean you can redefine it.



I am not "redefining" it...they are. Think about it, Frank...and you will see that I am correct.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 10:07 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
He's saying that the term Atheism isn't really an accurate reflection of what most "atheists" are really thinking (or in this case, "not" thinking) about, which is theism. Sam believes that most atheists begin simply with a reasoning process which only secondarily comes into conflict with theological thought by happenstance, not by intention. And that by allowing theologists to label us as "anti-theologists" rather than as people who are simply interested in reasonable rational conclusions, that we are being used as straw men for an argument which they (the theists) want to construct.


This does seem true but I think that this method "the scientific method" the method that requires evidence would need to be taught in school at an early age before the person is brain washed into believing that facts don't matter. How many adults simply tune out reason when they have not thought to use from a early age?

I wonder how many people may have brains that are unable to live in a world without beliefs. Maybe you could teach the scientific method to them without being exposed to religion and they may still acquire superstitious thoughts. I do not know why a person is unable to see this as simple as it seems, it may just be their brain function.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 10:18 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I would love for you to explain how one can be "without gods" and not deny that gods exist.


I would think that the "without gods" idea was around when Socrates was around. From what I understand there was a time when it was seen as unfit or a sin to have no God and it was not demanded that you chose a certain one but you had to believe in any one of them.
I personally think that they used "without gods" to describe a group of people or a person who they thought did not worship a God.
How do you think they used the meaning of it?

Do you actually think that a theist could believe that a person could be without a God in the sense that you use it?

Was it a theist who came up with the word or an atheist?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 10:20 am
@Frank Apisa,
If you're waiting for my reply... don't hold your breath...
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 10:47 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

If you're waiting for my reply... don't hold your breath...


I'm not...I figured you wouldn't.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 10:52 am
I just finished reading this entire thread. Much clear thinking but I'm so glad this is my only contribution.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 10:55 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
I would love for you to explain how one can be "without gods" and not deny that gods exist.


I would think that the "without gods" idea was around when Socrates was around. From what I understand there was a time when it was seen as unfit or a sin to have no God and it was not demanded that you chose a certain one but you had to believe in any one of them.
I personally think that they used "without gods" to describe a group of people or a person who they thought did not worship a God.
How do you think they used the meaning of it?

Do you actually think that a theist could believe that a person could be without a God in the sense that you use it?

Was it a theist who came up with the word or an atheist?


RL...look at an etymological dictionary...and you will see that the word "atheist" (which came into the English language BEFORE theist) did not derive from prefixing an "a" to "theist"...making it "someone without a BELIEF in gods."

That is an invention of modern day atheists who do not want to be faced with the same task they assign to theists. Atheists often challenge theists to "prove" or "offer evidence" for their assertion that there is a god.

If atheists stuck with the original meaning of "atheist" (being without god(s))...they would, in effect, have to assume the burden of proof for an allegation that they are without gods (which would mean they are asserting there are no gods)...so they thought up this "weak atheism" nonsense, because they are afraid their fellow atheists will mock them if they designate themselves agnostics of any stripe.

I have been trying to find a "first use" for weak atheist...but I cannot. It is a fairly recent invention...and certainly post dates "agnostic."
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 11:27 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
RL...look at an etymological dictionary...and you will see that the word "atheist" (which came into the English language BEFORE theist) did not derive from prefixing an "a" to "theist"...making it "someone without a BELIEF in gods."


You have made this claim many times before and I agree.

What do you think the original author "who came up with the word was meaning? Was he meaning that they did not believe in a God or that a God actually did not exist where the atheists existed?

Let me give you a clue. Theists believe a God exists regardless if atheists do not believe in them so I see it as intended to mean that the theist who came up with the word meant that this people or person did not believe in a God.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 11:54 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
RL...look at an etymological dictionary...and you will see that the word "atheist" (which came into the English language BEFORE theist) did not derive from prefixing an "a" to "theist"...making it "someone without a BELIEF in gods."


You have made this claim many times before and I agree.


Good.

Quote:
What do you think the original author "who came up with the word was meaning? Was he meaning that they did not believe in a God or that a God actually did not exist where the atheists existed?


I have absoluely no idea...nor would I want to make a guess.




Quote:
Let me give you a clue. Theists believe a God exists regardless if atheists do not believe in them so I see it as intended to mean that the theist who came up with the word meant that this people or person did not believe in a God.


That is interesting...and I thank you for sharing it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 12:18 pm
@reasoning logic,
Those who prate about the entry of the word atheist into English are advancing what i think of as the argument from the dictionary. Apparently, they attempt to suggest that atheism did not exist until Noah Webster wrote it down in his dictionary (or whomever they credit with the dirty deed). Ancient Greece, at least, gives the lie to that. It is reminiscent of Shaw's St. Joan in which the inquisitor objects to Joan's voices because they spoke to her in French. When asked what language they ought to have spoken, he answers, as though surprised, "English, of course!"

Socrates didn't write anything down, so all we know about him comes from Plato and Xenophon. In fact, the "apology" by Plato wasn't even written down by him, but by Xenophon. Based on the Platonic apology, Socrates could have been described as an agnostic. Whether he was also an atheist can't really be known. His detractors, castigating him from a variety of points of view, accused him of being an atheist, and of not being an atheist (that being a bad thing in some people's eyes).

Neither was Plato an atheist, but despite heavy borrowings from Plato by Origen and Augustine of Hippo, his view of theism cannot easily be squared with christian theism. He didn't believe in a creator god, only a demiurge, which shaped the material world from imperfect materials. He also spoke and wrote about "the gods," seeing them natural phenomena, such as Apollo, with their religious character actually being false, in that they were not personalities but simply avatars of natural forces--in this view, Apollo is the avatar of the sun, and the benefits it confers on the earth.

It seems to escape those who advance the idiotic argument from the dictionary, that Socrates could not have been accused of being an atheist, or, alternatively by those who considered that a good thing, not being an atheist, unless the concept existed 2500 years ago. Neither Plato nor Pythagoras were supporters of the "established" religion of the Greeks, and it is not clear that those religious myths any longer had any force in Greek society. Pythagoras was a very religious person, in that he saw the divine and the mathematical as inseparable, but he believed in metempsychosis, the transmigration of souls, which people of little education and no imagination would call "reincarnation." Pythagoras was not known to have commented on cosmogony (the origin of the cosmos) nor on source of souls.

Seneca the Younger, who, coincidentally, was born at about the same time as the putative Jesus was alleged to have been born, wrote, nearly 2000 years ago:

Quote:
Religion--regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.


When Seneca was growing up, Octavian, called Caesar Augustus, was emperor. When Augustus died, his successor, Tiberius, had him declared divine, and the worship of Augustus was added to the state religion. Everyone in the Roman empire was required to at least pay lip service ot the state religion. You could practice any religion you pleased, but once a year, you had to go to the market, buy a chicken, and take it to the civic temple for the priests to slaughter it, and read the auguries of its entrails. The priests would at least have chicken soup for supper, and on a good day, they could all have roast chicken.

The concept of the atheist is at last thousands of years old, not matter what drivel anyone may allege about when the word entered the English language.

*******************************************

It is possible for someone to be a theist and an agnostic, just as it is for someone to be an atheist and an agnostic. The agnostic theist says, as several members here have done over the years: "I don't know if there is a god, but i believe that there is." The agnostic atheist, of course, says: "I don't know if there is a god, but i don't believe that there is." These issues are very, very old, and, as i've pointed out, go back at least thousands of years. I suspect when the first shaman stepped up and started ranting about the sun god, or the mother earth goddess, someone in the back of the crowd shouted out "Bullshit!"
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 12:31 pm
@Setanta,
Thank you for sharing, Good reading.

Quote:
the "apology" by Plato wasn't even written down by him, but by Xenophon.


I did not know this I thought Plato wrote it. I liked it very much regardless. Even though it's a very short read I recommend it to anyone.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 12:38 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

It is possible for someone to be a theist and an agnostic, just as it is for someone to be an atheist and an agnostic. The agnostic theist says, as several members here have done over the years: "I don't know if there is a god, but i believe that there is." The agnostic atheist, of course, says: "I don't know if there is a god, but i don't believe that there is."


I agree.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 12:46 pm
Setanta says that atheists do not proselytize…and simply state that they do not believe in any gods and leave it at that. They do not go further, says Setanta.

But listen to what he writes…and you see that he “cares” very much…and has cared for a very long time. For over ten years now, Setanta has been trying to recruit me to the atheist ranks…defining atheism in a way that requires that I acknowledge atheism as the one true faith.

Today, as I have so many times in the past, I laugh at him and his arguments…and the absurdity of his protestations about not proselytizing and “leaving it at that.”

Those claims are as phony as a batch of $4 bills.

Apparently Setanta imagines that I think the notion and concept of atheism just came into being recently…despite the fact that I have acknowledged on many occasions (including during the last several days) that the notion existed long before the English word existed.

Setanta does not mention that his perverse, self-serving definition of atheist requires that babies and incompetents be considered atheists (but I repeat myself)…because they do not “believe” in gods.

Pathetic!

Anyway, despite Setanta’s considerable efforts over the years to persuade me into the fold…I am still having no part of it.

If I have to be classified as an agnostic or an atheist…I am an agnostic…not an atheist.

Better, however, to simply state my position on the question of the existence of gods without a designation:

I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods; I do not know if there are no gods; I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist; I see no reason that suggests gods are needed to explain existence; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.

By the way…the notion that my position on this issue is better classified as atheistic than simply as agnostic is so absurd, one would think that anyone advocating such a preposterous notion would be more careful about calling other comments “idiotic.”

But NOOOOO!

Oh, my…today has turned out to be a delight.

Wink Laughing
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 01:04 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods; I do not know if there are no gods; I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist; I see no reason that suggests gods are needed to explain existence; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.


Frank you are so silly,

OK we get it "you are agnostic, non-theist, A-theist but certainly not atheist. Rolling Eyes
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 01:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Setanta has been trying to recruit me to the atheist ranks…defining atheism in a way that requires that I acknowledge atheism as the one true faith.


Really frank? setanta has faith in atheism?

If setanta looked as good as the leader of this atheist movement I might follow myself.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 01:35 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods; I do not know if there are no gods; I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist; I see no reason that suggests gods are needed to explain existence; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.


Frank you are so silly,


No, I am not silly. But if it boosts your spirits to think I am...be my guest.




Quote:
OK we get it "you are agnostic, non-theist, A-theist but certainly not atheist. Rolling Eyes


I am not an atheist.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 01:46 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I am not an atheist.


How can you be sure unless you have a definition of atheist that you think is correct?



Quote:
Is this your definition of an atheist? "Someone who is almost certain a God does not exist"?



I do not have a definition
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 02:02 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
I am not an atheist.


How can you be sure unless you have a definition of atheist that you think is correct?



Quote:
Is this your definition of an atheist? "Someone who is almost certain a God does not exist"?



I do not have a definition



I am not an atheist!
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 02:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I am not a theist


I Know.

Make sure you read the warnings on this video before watching Frank.

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 08:51:10