Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   Religious people: what is your level of observance? (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/54521-religious-people-what-your-level-observance.html)

RVCA 03-30-2011 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA (Post 1025737)
Agnosticism is not a middle ground between Theism and Atheism. You can be Agnostic and Theistic at the same time. You can also be Agnostic and Atheistic at the same time. Agnosticism concerns knowledge while Theism concerns belief- they are not mutually exclusive.

For further information: Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To Stu: I just wanted to apologize for kind of attacking your agnosticism earlier in this thread. I was incorrect when I said it isn't a middle ground. I thought about it some more, and it can be. I simply skimmed over your earlier response and assumed you were another one of those people that misunderstood "agnostic" to purely mean "I believe in God, but I'm not sure which one".

to everything else in the last 5 pages or so: :eek:

Janszoon 03-30-2011 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer (Post 1027169)
Janszoon & crukster both have a point IMO.

It's true that, technically, atheism is nothing more than the lack of any belief in a deity.... but at the same time, atheists (generally speaking) do tend to display a cult-like antipathy towards theists, and in some cases will more or less make idols out of the leaders of the 'New Atheist Movement' like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc. I think it's fairly telling that on Facebook profiles and the like, under "beliefs", most atheists don't put "none", they put "atheism".

Do you not see the huge logical flaw inherent in what you are saying here? You're basically only acknowledging the existence of atheists who conform to your stereotype of the group. For all you know 90% percent of atheists could be people who don't declare it in any way, but you'd never know they're atheists because they don't actively identify themselves as such.

Your comments are actually a good example of the atheist catch-22 and the problems with being an invisible minority that I was talking about earlier. If atheists remain silent about who they are, people like yourself go around thinking that the handful of atheists you are aware of are representative of the whole. But if they speak up and say "hey, I'm an atheist too" they get accused of being in your face about it.

Janszoon 03-30-2011 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke (Post 1027174)
I don't like to stereotype a whole group of people like that, but I see where you're coming from. Alot of atheists (or at least the ones I know) seem intent on trying to force their beliefs on others, usually for some snarky reason to show how intelligent they think they are. It would be sweet if everyone just did their own thing and didn't care what others were doing.

I'm not sure how it is in Canada, but in the US atheists have to contend with mainstream politicians and other figures in the media saying things like this:

Gingrich fears 'atheist country … dominated by radical Islamists' – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

And of course if we say anything about it we're viewed as "snarky" or "trying to force our beliefs on others". Definitely feels like a no-win situation sometimes.

Howard the Duck 03-30-2011 06:08 AM

atheists in Malaysia mostly go about doing their own thing

unless you're Malay - you cannot be an atheist (no religious freedom for Malays here - they must be mandatorily Islam)

s_k 03-30-2011 08:55 AM

There's a reason to move...

Howard the Duck 03-30-2011 09:20 AM

there are many reasons to move

but i like the food here, people here are nice, life is quite serene, and summer all year round

s_k 03-30-2011 09:21 AM

And you're told what to believe :D.

Gotta love that (...).

Burning Down 03-30-2011 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1027349)
I'm not sure how it is in Canada, but in the US atheists have to contend with mainstream politicians and other figures in the media saying things like this:

Gingrich fears 'atheist country … dominated by radical Islamists' – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

And of course if we say anything about it we're viewed as "snarky" or "trying to force our beliefs on others". Definitely feels like a no-win situation sometimes.

I don't believe we've ever had problems like that here!

Thom Yorke 03-30-2011 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1027349)
I'm not sure how it is in Canada, but in the US atheists have to contend with mainstream politicians and other figures in the media saying things like this:

Gingrich fears 'atheist country … dominated by radical Islamists' – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

And of course if we say anything about it we're viewed as "snarky" or "trying to force our beliefs on others". Definitely feels like a no-win situation sometimes.

I'm not picking sides; as an agnostic I never do. I don't like enforcing views on others on both fronts, but it seems that atheism almost never gets a bad rap for it.

I'm not trying to stereotype atheists either. I specified it was from the atheists that I've dealt with. From my experience going to a Catholic high school (even though I'm not Catholic), I found that being snarky (can't believe i used that word) was definitely behind it.

Involving religion in politics is just wrong though. Secularism is the way to go.

crukster 03-30-2011 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1027039)
I already did that and you simply ignored my response and continued with the strawmen.


Heh. You're not ill-formed, you're ill-informed. Atheism isn't a philosophy, all it is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it. Atheists have a variety of different philosophies, some are even members of religions even though they don't believe in the supernatural components.

Thats irrelevant. If you didn't know what I meant you wouldnt have been able to correct it. Grammar and spelling is not really the issue here.

If they are a part of religion, then they're not atheist. Atheist = a self-proclaimed aversion to religion.

Psychologically, to be asocial is to decide to withdraw from social matters.

Biologically, to be asexual is to have a biological construction which does not require you to have sex in order to reproduce.

and so on.

Theologically, atheism is the decided rejection of theism.

It doesnt mean just not beliving.

It doesnt mean not beliving in the supernatural

It doesn't mean not beliving in God.

It means the rejection and dispute of theism. Atheists believe theism is unneccessary to the Human Condition in absolute.

Furthermore, if you won't accept the possibility of the supposed impossible, if you won't accept that there's more to life than you currently know, then you can't be a part of any religion. Can't is not really the word - I mean it more in the sense that there's no reason for you to be.

If there is no purpose to Humanity then I have no interest in Humanity.


But before you play the "without your religion you'd be a psycho killer" card, allow me to explain.

There is a purpose to Humanity, because we exist. Thus, we maintain that existence, and seek to understand it further. From that, we'll attain further purpose.

If I didn't believe THAT, then yes, I would be a psycho killer. Arguably, though, if it wasn't true I wouldnt exist or be here in the first place, so how would I kill anyone?

But you dont have to be religious to believe that. All I'm saying is religion is a useful component of such an idea.

You could decide to not follow a specific religion, but still assist to maintain Humanity and seek that purpose. All that would be different is the "name" and affiliation though, which is irrelevant in the end, you'd be doing the same things, with the exception of the corrupted religious and non-religious alike. Righteousness is Universal. What works works. What doesnt, doesnt.

But I don't really see how making yourself an enemy of religion helps. Because in essence, if what we're all doing truly works, it wont matter if we learnt it from a book or from experience. All that'll matter is whats done. Why should entire sources of input be written off just because you cant verify where they came from? Why does it matter where they came from? Why does it matter if Christ was sent by God or not? Why does it matter if Moses was physically handed the ten commandments in stone? Why does it matter if Muhammed was led to the mountains by a literal burning bush?

What matters is that we know of Christ and what matters is the message he left behind. What matters is that Moses gave us the ten commandments. What matters is that Muhammed was led to the mountain. God rest their souls.

What matters is what was said and done, because they hold very important messages, regardless of where they came from.

What matters is whatever larger framework we may be a part of.

How can you write off the possibility that they came from a higher power, a greater conciousness?

Why do you doubt the intention of that higher power, when the ten commandments have been shown very clearly to be functional and in the best interests of Humanity?

I'm not saying we shouldnt question, we should always question things.

it justs seems ignorant to me for someone to say "I am atheist, your rules dont apply to me" When we're not talking about rules of society. We're talking about rules of the Unvierse. If you're agravity will it stop affecting you? Religion is about understanding those laws of the Universe and then using our concious minds to maintain and apply them as best as possible to our own manmade social structures.

It doesnt matter who says them, it matters what's said and our understanding of whats said.

It's not who said it. It's what's said.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:05 AM.


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.