 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Atheism versus Religion |
New poll |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Bazu                  Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| We could always turn this into an etymology debate!
Agnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis. Meaning they think it's unknowable. And probably don't care very much. See also "apatheist". Atheism by contrast is "without god" meaning either lack of belief or active disbelief. The distinction is important but not that important--you people are doing a rather ridiculous "either/or" thing here, there's multiple connotations... that's the slippery nature of language. The word used to practically be a synonym for "immoral" and even today it still carries very negative connotations in some places, notably the US. Silvershield is wrong that atheism necessarily implies active disbelief... this presupposes a theocentric society, where belief in God is the default position which people have to choose to disavow... whereas for many of us this simply wasn't the case. I'd wager, for example, that a sizable minority or slim majority of Australians my age are simply atheistic by default, they've simply always been because it's never occurred to them to try to be otherwise. |
|||
Silvershield   580    Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JDavisHonestly, is nobody here capable of a simple italic for emphasis rather than resorting to capitalization? Etiquette holds that to capitalize is essentially equivalent to yelling in face-to-face conversation, and I find that when I read it I get that exact sense; I can recognize an italic, the use of bold, or an underline - or even more than one of them, in absolutely extreme cases - as signs of strong emphasis, there's no need to "yell." It's annoying. Originally posted by JDavisI can't quite wrap my mind around the concept of a "strong" versus a "weak" agnostic. Let me try to illustrate my perception of those two terms: A "weak" agnostic says, "Humanity does not have enough evidence to commit to the belief or disbelief in a deity, or simply is inherently incapable of making such a choice competently." A "strong" agnostic says, "Humanity really does not have enough evidence to commit to the belief or disbelief in a deity, or simply is inherently incapable of making such a choice competently." I don't see any difference. Please, correct me. And I say that not in a condescending way, but as an earnest request for you to help me reason this out. Because, try as I may, I cannot see my argument's flaw. Originally posted by emcee...then why are you here? I am enjoying this and feel like I am gaining something from it, and the other people involved must be getting something out of it too or else they wouldn't have stuck around so long; who are you to criticize? Just because the thread has "exploded to five pages" doesn't mean that it's necessarily worthless - if you want a 5+ page thread that is worthless, there are several forums here devoted to just that sort of thing... Edit: Originally posted by ArwonI don't see where I imply that - or, at least, I don't intend to imply it. Agnosticism is certainly an active, rather than a passive, philosophy, because it requires the active recognition that no conclusion can be drawn; atheism can certainly encompass both an active disbelief and a passive one. (edited by Silvershield on 10-21-06 02:33 AM) |
|||
JDavis Nintendo Fanboy Local Mod Affected by 'The Golden Power' +  Since: 11-17-05 From: Ada, OK, USA Last post: 6292 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield Corrected. And I will admit that I went a little overboard on that emphasis, but only because it seemed that we were going in circles with that concept. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JDavisSo, you essentially frame it as a "weak agnostic" saying that current technology and/or philosophy have not reached such a level of sophistication that would allow the God Question to be answered, and that is simply reflective of the inadequacy of current technology and/or philosophy; whereas, a "strong agnostic" says that technology and philosophy are not only currently inadequate, but they always will be, because there is a universal truth that does not allow the God Question to be answered. Isn't the weak agnostic just a small step away from being a full-fledged atheist? Your description essentially says that he somehow "defaults" to the side of non-belief, but you then emphasize the fact that he would not hesitate to switch sides in accordance with new evidence. Isn't that what a legitimate atheist is? A rational atheist - or, one who professes belief only in that which is proven concretely - would behave identically, changing sides if new evidence arose. Originally posted by JDavis 
But, seriously, it's not just you, and it's really really irritating. Edit to correct "atheist" when it should be "agnostic," as pointed out below. (edited by Silvershield on 10-21-06 04:11 PM) |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield I'm here because I thought I'd skim through to see if there was maybe something new in this thread that made it worth more then all the other religion threads. There wasn't, and I commented on that fact. I don't think this thread is worthless becuase its five pages (I5 pages was just an example, my settings show it as three). And I don't think most people are sticking with this discussion because they feel they're getting something out of it, I think they're sticking with it just because this is kind of thing that gets them fired up. Anyway, I guess I'll leave it at that, pushing this issue any farther would probably be a bit hypocritical. |
|||
|
KP9001 180 I'm going Weasel in 3 months! Where will I end up going?  Since: 01-30-06 From: Show Low, AZ Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Jesus Christ?
Beans and rice? Which do you hold closer to your heart? If I chose the latter, all I'd do is fart. |
|||
|
JDavis Nintendo Fanboy Local Mod Affected by 'The Golden Power' + Since: 11-17-05 From: Ada, OK, USA Last post: 6292 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
((You slipped up and said "strong atheist" where you meant "strong agnostic"  ))
Originally posted by Silvershield The size of the "step away from being a full-fledged atheist" that he is is roughly equal to the size of the step he is away from being a full-fledged theist. He defaults not only to the side of non-belief of theism, but also to non-belief of athiesm. It's both sides of the arguement which he sees as not having enough (currently interpretable) evidence to support them. Thus, he accepts neither. The same goes for the "strong" agnostic. The difference essentially boils down to their willingness to accept one viewpoint or the other. Let's take this hypothetical situation, for example: Two brothers are taking a stroll through the park, Weak Agnostic and Strong Agnostic. Suddenly, God appears in the sky and says "Hey guys, what's up?" "Oh," says Weak Agnostic, "I guess that proves that He exists!" And promptly goes off to change his name to something more appropriate of his new point of view. "Well," says Stong Agnostic, "That might be God... Or it might be some sort of powerful, highly evolved alien being posing as God. There's no way we'll know for sure unless He slips up and does something that proves He's a fake." And then answers God's question because in either case He's not someone you'd want to be rude to. |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| "I'm not trying to label you for the sake of being malicious"
I did'nt think you were, no offense taken. This is the first religion topic I've ever read where the actual definitions of Atheist and Agnostic were vigorously debated  So there is something new, I guess!
"You're absolutely right - when every possibly outcome of a specific scenario is unlikely, and then the actual outcome turns out to be one of those unlikely options (because it has to be), nothing at all is proven." Well, that is the exact argument many theists (more particularly Christians, as they are the only ones who've attempted to convert me) use when trying to get me to their point of view. "And, I don't think that human free will and God's omniscience are mutually exclusive, but it involves a great deal of juggling with the concept of time and space and predestination and all that erudite stuff. I've explained it to myself in a very convoluted, roundabout way, but, to simplify, just because God knows what we will do in a given situation doesn't mean that He made us do it. Imagine that He is so infinitely familiar with each and every one of us humans that He could flawlessly predict our behavior even millenia before we were born; that doesn't mean that He caused us to behave in whatever way we do, but that He "saw it coming" just based on His knowledge of our individual personalities, etc. Or, justify it to yourself in whatever way makes the most sense to you. Heh heh. " Even if he did'nt make us act the way we did, he made us knowing that we'd behave that way, which in my books would be the equivalent of setting a wild animal loose on the freeway knowing it'd just get run over. If you have to juggle logic around and come up with some odd justification, does'nt that bode ill for the concept of god? Where in the bible is this logical gymnastics located? What else could justify it? "You subscribe to the widespread belief that religion historically causes more harm than good. Corrupt people, misinterpretation of Scripture according to a specific agenda, and similar things all cause harm, but devotion to the essential tenets of most any religion causes absolutely no harm at all. You're saying that, since people have used religion as a pretense through which to do evil, religion is itself bad; that is a fallacy, as far as I can see. " But all those corrupt people and all those evil people got away with it only because of their ability to hi-jack a religion. Take away the religion and you've taken away their greatest tool. Many of those historical tragedies may have played out differently or not happened at all. That all this stuff happened so readily in the past makes it clear that it's going to keep happening over and over again. Even if the people responsible are not true believers (though many of them claimed to be, and who are we to say they were'nt?), they acted under the guise of religion. "I don't think God is defined loosely at all. He is a supernatural being who is responsible for the world as we know it; different religions will tack different additions onto that basic idea, or will qualify it differently, but that's the base of it. " That is god under the most generic and loosely defined terms, but no religion I'm aware of keeps it that simple. They all have much greater detail in what god is, how many gods there are, where god is located, what he looks like, gender, things he's done, etc. Many of these details can be completely and thoroughly disproved. This calls the whole religion into question in my book, because when something is presented as the complete and infallible word of god, then some of it is conclusively shown to be lies, that makes the whole thing very suspicious at the very least. "Absolutely you will see a greater concentration of a specific religious group in an area that has predominately followed that religion for generations. I won't deny for a second that the tendency is for people to be more inclined to that belief system that they are first exposed to. I only object to the implication that I am personally Christian because of my upbringing alone, because it directly includes the notion that I am irrational and brainwashed; I would generalize that same idea to other individuals, as well, in pointing out that there is no hard and fast rule that will determine what any specific person will be, because everyone comes to their ultimate faith (or lack thereof) in a different way. " Much of what people consider religion is actually culture, I'd even go so far as to say that all of religion is simply culture, and we are basically brainwashed into the culture we are born with. For example, I celebrate christmas simply because it's a custom in the US, not because of religious fervor. Maybe a better example is hair. Arm pit hair. When i see a woman with arm pit hair, i'm not the slightest bit attracted by it, actually kinda repulsed. But why would that be? It's perfectly natural... But in my culture its considered ugly and i'm a product of my culture in this sense. There are other cultures that see it differently, and even though I think they are wrong in my heart, logically I know that they are probably right because it actually is natural. Though some people will go against their culture, those people are exceedingly rare. And before you say that it makes no sense then for me to be an atheist (or agnostic if like), because the US is christian... actually it makes lots of sense because our country has 2 dueling identities based on the people who founded it. You have the puritans tradition (christians) and the democratic tradition (old world free-thinkers getting ideas from places like ancient greece) together though they are very commonly at odds with each other. "I don't know how I would answer this sufficiently, except to say that God's ways and God's ideas are so far beyond the capacity of humanity as to appear totally illogical or incomprehensible. Like I've stated previously, that sounds absolutely like a cop-out, but that's what faith is about. " OK, so how can you say he wants us to have faith in him or that he gave us free will if you also think he is so illogical and incomprehensible that we cant know what he's thinking? |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombThe issue here is that you continue to understand God as if He adheres to the same rules and the same logic that define humanity. I recently read a review/rebuttal of Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion, and one point that the review's author made was especially brilliant and especially pertinent to this particular discussion: "Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms." What it comes down to is, you perceive God as if He is just some supersized person. That is, He is great and big and huge and powerful, but He still has the mind of a man (or a "chap," as the British (or Irish?) author wrote). The analogy presented - the one that speaks of Tony Blair as an octopus - sums it up: you assume that God is similar to humanity and then wonder why His logic is apparently so far removed from human logic, but your initial assumption is flawed and so nullifies the entire statement. Originally posted by JombScience and technology have inflicted just as many, if not more, atrocities as religion has. The nuclear bomb, chemical weapons - hell, even just swords and guns - are all products of science. Scientific progress is a great thing, and it is overwhelmingly used for good, but in order to destroy its capacity to create bad, you would need to destroy science totally - would it be worth the loss? Originally posted by JombWould you care to provide a specific example of which of God's attributes can be "completely and thoroughly disproved"? Originally posted by JombReligion and culture are absolutey intertwined, but I think you are wrong when you identically equate the two. And I also think you are incorrect in stating that it is "normal" for you to be an atheist because of our country's history - even those "old world free-thinkers" were overwhelmingly religious, or at least religiously affiliated, if only because atheism was so uncommon (and perhaps even taboo) at that point in time. Your atheism does not stem from some great tradition of atheism in America, but from a personal dissatisfaction with religion for whatever reason; you are proof that upbringing cannot be generalized to explain every person's religious opinions. Likewise, I am myself very religious, and my parents raised me that way, but both my older and my younger brother have stopped attending church and are not very religiously-inclined at all. And you can bet that they were brought up alongside and identical to me. Edit for a missing parenthesis. Edit again to correct an apostrophe. (edited by Silvershield on 10-22-06 08:38 PM) (edited by Silvershield on 10-22-06 08:45 PM) |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| "The issue here is that you continue to understand God as if He adheres to the same rules and the same logic that define humanity"
My point is this - If god adheres to our logic and makes sense then there are too many logical inconsistancies for him to be real. But, if god does not follow our logic and cant be known, then all religions are wrong because god is incomprehensible and they claim to comprehend. "Science and technology have inflicted just as many, if not more, atrocities as religion has. The nuclear bomb, chemical weapons - hell, even just swords and guns - are all products of science. Scientific progress is a great thing, and it is overwhelmingly used for good, but in order to destroy its capacity to create bad, you would need to destroy science totally - would it be worth the loss? " Got to disagree here on many points. First off, science is the only reason there are 6 billion people here on earth, because through things like medicine and modern agricultural techniques, more people live longer and have food to eat, to the tune of billions of people. No nuclear war or scientific catastrophe has caused a death toll anywhere near that figure. Additionally, science has made life much much easier for us to live (try living wild in the woods with only stone tools for awhile and you'll appreciate this). Without science we simply could'nt exist like we are now. Religion has been the motivation for some good charity works, but I'm not convinced it outweighs the times that it's been used to mistreat or murder people of different ethnicities. Additionally, the world could go on with very little difference without religion. We'd all still live basically as we do right now. "Would you care to provide a specific example of which of God's attributes can be "completely and thoroughly disproved"? " where to begin... I'll use only christian examples since you are christian, but the same sort of problems come up with any religion i know of. Garden of Eden - There is a talking snake, we know snakes lack vocal cords or the capacity for speech. There are only 2 humans, one male and one female, this is not a viable breeding population and could not survive in the long run. It is claimed that the world was created as we see it now in about 1 week, we know this to be not possible and out of touch with the facts. It also sets the age of the earth to be much younger than we now know it to be. When Noah supposedly saved all the animals from the earth being completely submerged in water, he is missing many types of animals which we know exist today, but they do exist so obviously such a thing never happened, or are we to assume he sailed literally around the world and collected all these animals in a wooden man-powered vessel and somehow fit them all in the boat and did it quick enough to prevent their drowning? Man was said to be created in the image of god, but we now know that man has changed form over time, so does that make gods form something like a homo habilus and we evolved past god? Somehow I dont think that is what the bible had in mind. "Religion and culture are absolutey intertwined, but I think you are wrong when you identically equate the two. And I also think you are incorrect in stating that it is "normal" for you to be an atheist because of our country's history - even those "old world free-thinkers" were overwhelmingly religious, or at least religiously affiliated, if only because atheism was so uncommon (and perhaps even taboo) at that point in time. Your atheism does not stem from some great tradition of atheism in America, but from a personal dissatisfaction with religion for whatever reason; you are proof that upbringing cannot be generalized to explain every person's religious opinions. Likewise, I am myself very religious, and my parents raised me that way, but both my older and my younger brother have stopped attending church and are not very religiously-inclined at all. And you can bet that they were brought up alongside and identical to me. " Being religious and being religiously affiliated are 2 very different things. On paper one would think I was a christian because my grandmother is and had me baptised in her church. Most of the founding fathers were more strongly free-thinkers than christians. Many had serious doubts or were out-right agnostics. The ideas they exp (edited by Jomb on 10-22-06 09:37 PM) (edited by Jomb on 10-22-06 09:39 PM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombFirst of all, your second sentence is inaccurate: I say that God does not follow our logic, but I do not say that He cannot be known (at least not in the sense that He cannot be known of - whether He can be intricately understood, though, is a different story.) I don't see why I cannot understand that God exists without understanding how he works. Christians believe that God revealed Himself to us - that is, revealed His existance and His will to us - but not that He revealed how He works or thinks. Originally posted by JombWho are you to make the unilateral judgement that all of science's benefits have made up for its faults? And, likewise, that all of religion's benefits have not made up for its faults? You speak as if religion plays only a minimal part as far as creating good in the world, at least in relation to the bad that it does, but can you not consider every single good deed, both great and small, that has ever been done in the name of religion? Every single sick person who has been cared for, every single starving person who has been fed, every single oppressed person who has been defended, all because of religion? You can't easily quantify that. Originally posted by JombA great deal of the Bible is metaphor and/or parable. Originally posted by JombFirst, you say yourself that those early Americans were agnostic, not atheist; in that sense, we "might" have a tradition of agnosticism, but I can't imagine that we have any sort of long-standing, prominent tradition of atheism. At least not to such an extent that a great deal of people would be influenced to atheistic beliefs by it. On the contrary, most American atheists come to their beliefs because of exasperation with religion, as some sort of rebellion, or for many other reasons, but I would strongly doubt that many say, "Hey, America has long been renowned as a great force for large-scale atheism, I think I'll join the club." That said, the point remains that there is no reliable way to "predict" the faith a person will follow. As I've said, my brothers and I were all raised in the same way, all grew up in the same country, but we all have different beliefs. On a large scale, people might tend towards the religion that is most prevalent around them, but I am speaking of individuals. |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| (sorry for the late reply, when i last tried to come here the site appeared to be down)
"Who are you to make the unilateral judgement that all of science's benefits have made up for its faults? And, likewise, that all of religion's benefits have not made up for its faults? You speak as if religion plays only a minimal part as far as creating good in the world, at least in relation to the bad that it does, but can you not consider every single good deed, both great and small, that has ever been done in the name of religion? Every single sick person who has been cared for, every single starving person who has been fed, every single oppressed person who has been defended, all because of religion? You can't easily quantify that. " I'm but one man I actually believe that much of science has caused problems (with the environment, etc.), but it seems clear as day that we simply could'nt exist as we do now without science. In the case of science its very tangible and easy to see, I would think. In the case of religion its very intangible, who's to say that the people currently doing good works would not simply have done the same good works without religion because they are fundamentally good people? On the other side of the coin you could argue that the bad things may have happened anyway and would have simply used a different excuse. I dont think people would be fundamentally different if they never had religion in their lives, I say this because I'm not fundamentally different without it. But i know for a fact that our lives would be very different without science, its much sketchier with religion.
"A great deal of the Bible is metaphor and/or parable." right, thats exactly what I believe about the bible to. Many christians do not believe this though. But then it comes down to wondering which parts are metaphors and which are not. If you read the bible without any preconceived ideas about it being fact or fiction, it comes off similar to the mythologies of other religions. This is why I consider it to be mythology. How can we say any given part of it is fact while other parts are fiction? I'm unaware of any part of the bible outlining which parts are actuall facts versus which parts are fables. Do we assume the whole thing is absolute truth as put forth by the word of god? Or do we accept that its not literally true and is more about the life lessons within the mythology? Once you accept that some of it is not literally true, that makes the rest of it suspicious when taken as literal truth. "First, you say yourself that those early Americans were agnostic, not atheist; in that sense, we "might" have a tradition of agnosticism, but I can't imagine that we have any sort of long-standing, prominent tradition of atheism. At least not to such an extent that a great deal of people would be influenced to atheistic beliefs by it. On the contrary, most American atheists come to their beliefs because of exasperation with religion, as some sort of rebellion, or for many other reasons, but I would strongly doubt that many say, "Hey, America has long been renowned as a great force for large-scale atheism, I think I'll join the club." " I've never considered myself as joining a historical club of american atheists. But there clearly is a strong history of free-thinking within the founding fathers of our country. It is from a stance of being a free-thinking man that i've come to my Atheism. By your definition though, I'm actually Agnostic, like most Atheists, probably including some of the founding fathers. Washington was a free-mason and took part in ceremonies worshipping the goddess. Much of the layout of our capital was based on free-mason principles. Our founding fathers were not fundamentalist christians by any stretch of the imagination. "That said, the point remains that there is no reliable way to "predict" the faith a person will follow. As I've said, my brothers and I were all raised in the same way, all grew up in the same country, but we all have different beliefs. On a large scale, people might tend towards the religion that is most prevalent around them, but I am speaking of individuals." Actually there is a very reliable, though not 100% accurate way of predicting religion. That is, predict it based on the religions in the area the person is from. Just because something is only 99.5% or more accurate and not absolutely 100% accurate in every case does not invalidate it. It's obvious to me that religion is an exp |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombThen, of course, you can ignore science for the moment and just refer to politics. Hasn't politics caused immeasurable harm throughout history? Yet, nobody would suggest that all of the world's governments should be abolished or anything like that. One reason being, government's intent is to organize people for their greater good, but individuals who gain power through government can twist that; likewise, individuals who gain power through religion are what cause the harm normally attributed to religion itself. Originally posted by JombHow do you know you are not fundamentally different without religion? Obviously, you know how you are as a non-religious person, but you don't know how your personality, lifestyle, behavior, etc would change if you were religious. Originally posted by JombThere is no recourse in this case except to outright declare that those Christians who take the Bible as word-for-word, literal truth are wrong. But I don't see how it is necessary or logical to assume that: just because parts of the book take the form of allegory rather than literal narrative, the remainder of the book must follow suit. There is no reason whatsoever to draw that conclusion. Originally posted by JombI take issue with the fact that atheists and agnostics are continually drawn as "free thinkers" while religious people are contrasted and thus implied to be "non-free thinkers." We've addressed this before: having a specific philosophical belief does not automatically make you a free thinker, nor does having a different belief make you some sort of sheep. Many of the world's greatest philosophical minds were/are religious - many of them were/are Christian, in fact - and I don't understand how you can presume that they are not "free thinkers." Likewise, even the typical Christian person in the Western world today is not just blindly following religion; most people rationally and specifically assess their beliefs. They are all free thinkers. Originally posted by JombI am from a town called Emerson, New Jersey. By a rough estimate, 75% of the people from my town are religious. My brothers are also from Emerson, New Jersey. Of the three of us (my brothers and I), I am religious, and they are not. That is, 66% of the children in my family are non-religious, while 33% are. And we all come from the same place. The numbers are a near-inverse of what they "should" be. That's not "99.5% accuracy." The fact remains, you are placing all the responsibility for a person's religious beliefs on their upbringing and their environment. As I've been saying, while I will not deny for a second that those factors play a major role, they are hardly the end-all. Innumerable personal factors determine what faith a person will follow, and you are wrong to simplify it to a simple case of blind devotion to a specific religion just because a person's parents belong to that religion. Just as often, a person is introduced and indoctrinated to a religion by his parents, but ultimately comes to rationalize and accept that faith on his own terms and of his own accord. Very few people, if any, are raised in a religion and go through life without questioning it at all. Originally posted by JombThe other explanation is that the Messiah that I believe in was confined to a particular geographical region during His time on Earth, and His teachings spread in such a way that they reached some areas of the world and not others. Or, the specific cultures that did not accept Christianity were structured such that the teachings of Christ did not appeal to their established cultural sensibilities. They are not "ignorant fools" or "Satanic," nor are they generally all worshiping my God in different ways; instead, religion was so deeply tied to culture that the two could not be separated, eliminating the potential for any sort of conversion or "enlightenment" to occur. Of course, individual people from within such groups can convert on their own. Of the three permanent priests at my home church, one is a native Korean; he found Christ even as Christianity is not overwhelmingly popular where he was raised. That is a fairly common story. |
|||
|
Thexare Metal battleaxe Off to better places  Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield Uh, so in other words one example can disprove 99.5%? Because, see, last time I checked, a single example could only disprove 100%. |
|||
|
Sin Dogan 860  Uoodo Original Blend Armored Trooper Votoms Canned Coffee! Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6283 days Last view: 6282 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield 75% in our town??? I think you're being way too generous. Most of the people say that they are of a certain religion but have not really given much thought to what they believe in and see religion as something you are born with. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ThexareIt's intended as an anecdotal example that can be generalized to a larger scale. I thought I implied that, but I suppose the implication wasn't strong enough. Originally posted by Sin DoganWell, I use the term "religious" very loosely. By most statistics, an enormous percentage of America is "religious," but a solid percentage of those people are more than likely just Christian or Jewish or whatever else in name only. Case in point: frequently, when the topic of religion comes up in conversation, and someone says that they are Catholic, I will ask them what church they go to. And they'll say something like, "Well, I don't really go to church." Church attendance is a cornerstone Catholic precept, and these people will say that they are Catholic because their parents baptized them or made them take their Confirmations or because everyone in their family calls themselves Catholic, but won't put any actual thought into the fact that they are truly nonreligious. It really bothers me when somebody says they belong to my religion, and then give that religion a bad name by not adhering to any of its essential beliefs. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| I love that. "By most statistics, an enormous percentage of America is "religious," but [...] in name only".
You hear this a lot from Christians. The best is when right-wing fundamentalists take a narrow view of who is and isn't a Christian, such that they accuse significant numbers of other people of not being religous.... but then, Christian leaders still claim to be part of a moral majority in spite of the fact that they recognise a large part of that majority isn't actually religious. I'm not accusing you of this by any means, SS, but I just want you to bear this in mind the next time you're tempted to invoke a "moral majority" type argument in the name of the alleged vast numbers of faithful. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonI'm not making some sort of elitist judgment. I am just pointing out something that can be clearly proven through statistics. Case in point, a major tenet of Catholicism is weekly attendance of Mass. The percentage of people who call themselves Catholic is much larger than the percentage who say they regularly go to church. Therefore, there are a great number of "Catholics" who do not adhere to one of its major precepts. Consider, also, the great number of divorces. Catholicism strictly frowns upon divorce, going so far as to define any second marriage without an annulment of the first marriage as adultery. Yet, many "Catholics" divorce and remarry without an annulment. Same thing with premarital sex, and abortion, and contraception (which is a controversial issue, but that's another story), and ten other things. I'm not just going around defining who is Catholic and who isn't because I'm some sort of elitist, but because the people who do not keep my faith give it a bad name for those of us who try very hard to. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| edit: nevermind (edited by Plus Sign Abomination on 10-28-06 06:14 PM) |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| "Then, of course, you can ignore science for the moment and just refer to politics. Hasn't politics caused immeasurable harm throughout history? Yet, nobody would suggest that all of the world's governments should be abolished or anything like that. One reason being, government's intent is to organize people for their greater good, but individuals who gain power through government can twist that; likewise, individuals who gain power through religion are what cause the harm normally attributed to religion itself. "
Actually, that is a very good example, Politics and Religion are very similar in more ways than I think you were implying I'd go so far as to say that there is a fine line between politics and religion and the two can be interchangable if care isn't taken to seperate them. I actually would'nt really mind if the world's governments were abolished and we all just lived as individual people with no country. But I'm a realist and know that that isn't ever going to happen
"How do you know you are not fundamentally different without religion? Obviously, you know how you are as a non-religious person, but you don't know how your personality, lifestyle, behavior, etc would change if you were religious. " Because at one time I was a Methodist. I was born as one and lived as one for a decade or so, but then realized it was all just like when my parents told me about Santa Claus as a child. The only thing different in my life is I dont attend church or claim a religion anymore. "There is no recourse in this case except to outright declare that those Christians who take the Bible as word-for-word, literal truth are wrong. But I don't see how it is necessary or logical to assume that: just because parts of the book take the form of allegory rather than literal narrative, the remainder of the book must follow suit. There is no reason whatsoever to draw that conclusion. " Right, there is no reason to draw the conclusion that any of it is actual literal truth without evidence, especially when parts are known to be untrue. There is no reason to draw any conclusion at all, including that the parts that are convenient to you, or the parts that you like, are literally true. "I take issue with the fact that atheists and agnostics are continually drawn as "free thinkers" while religious people are contrasted and thus implied to be "non-free thinkers." We've addressed this before: having a specific philosophical belief does not automatically make you a free thinker, nor does having a different belief make you some sort of sheep. Many of the world's greatest philosophical minds were/are religious - many of them were/are Christian, in fact - and I don't understand how you can presume that they are not "free thinkers." Likewise, even the typical Christian person in the Western world today is not just blindly following religion; most people rationally and specifically assess their beliefs. They are all free thinkers. " In my case that is how I became an Atheist, through exercising free-thinking. Not everyone is a free-thinker, and not all free-thinkers are religious or not religious. If you sat down and honestly contemplated the nature of the world as you know it, meditated on the different religions in the world, then made a decision based on the FACTS of the religions, then you came by your way of life through free-thinking. Most religious people did not do this, most of the people I know who claim a religion dont really care about it. Thats harsh to say, and i dont mean it as insulting, but in all honesty it's just not important to them or something they give much thought. Kinda like how some people just dont really care about politics or sports, etc. Most people attend a church because that's one of the only churches in their area, or because that's the church their family attends and their family would be disappointed if they did'nt attend it. I dont think at all that the majority of religious people are blindly following their religion, though there are some, just for most of them its whats expected of them and they do it without thought, but also without an extreme amount of devotion. --------But, if after deep thought on all the other religions in the world, you just happened to come to the conclusion that the one you were already involved with is the true one, that is one hell of a coincidence, isn't it? Thats what I'd call ethnocentrism
"I am from a town called Emerson, New Jersey. By a rough estimate, 75% of the people from my town are religious. My brothers are also from Emerson, New Jersey. Of the three of us (my brothers and I), I am religious, and they are not. That is, 66% of the children in my family are non-religious, while 33% are. And we all come from the same place. The numbers are a near-inverse of what they "should" be. That's not "99.5% accuracy." " In census I'm considered a Christian because I was a long long time ago. What's your point? My point is this, take a good hard look around, how many white american teenagers are becoming Hindus? Do you even know 1? How many white american teenagers are considered Christian? Almost all of them I'm willing to wager. Go to Delhi, how many Indian teenagers are converting to Wiccan? Probably none. How many are considered Hindus? Probably the majority of them. This is the kind of correlation you get with something which is cultural in nature rather than fact-based. But, the people in Delhi believe in the principles which make a Steam Engine work the same as we do, because that is fact based. See the difference? "The fact remains, you are placing all the responsibility for a person's religious beliefs on their upbringing and their environment. As I've been saying, while I will not deny for a second that those factors play a major role, they are hardly the end-all. Innumerable personal factors determine what faith a person will follow, and you are wrong to simplify it to a simple case of blind devotion to a specific religion just because a person's parents belong to that religion. Just as often, a person is introduced and indoctrinated to a religion by his parents, but ultimately comes to rationalize and accept that faith on his own terms and of his own accord. Very few people, if any, are raised in a religion and go through life without questioning it at all. "" I'm not coming off clearly enough then. I did'nt say your culture predicts your religion with 100% accuracy, just that it is the single most important factor and is accurate almost every time. Parents are not the only part of culture, peers also count. I'm willing to wager that most people do question their religion from time to time but dont really follow through with their doubts. Because its more a social function of attending church and would hurt them more than help them to follow through with their doubts. "The other explanation is that the Messiah that I believe in was confined to a particular geographical region during His time on Earth, and His teachings spread in such a way that they reached some areas of the world and not others. Or, the specific cultures that did not accept Christianity were structured such that the teachings of Christ did not appeal to their established cultural sensibilities. They are not "ignorant fools" or "Satanic," nor are they generally all worshiping my God in different ways; instead, religion was so deeply tied to culture that the two could not be separated, eliminating the potential for any sort of conversion or "enlightenment" to occur. " But, if the teaching were divine words straight from god, would they not be the absolute truth and easily be recognized as such by most anyone who read them? Regardless of which culture people belong to are'nt they still the creations of god? All religion is deeply tied to culture, it is culture
But to tie in with an earlier point, you were previously saying that theism was essentially all the same because its a general belief in god, but now you're saying that many of those other religions are not worshipping the same god as you. So are they still theists? Since they are'nt worshipping the same god as you, one of you has to be wrong, why do you think its they that are wrong? (edited by Jomb on 10-28-06 08:07 PM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Atheism versus Religion |
| Thread closed |
