Polytheish vs. Monotheism , Capitalism vs. Communism

[Sandman]

Originally posted by General Ludd
The similiarity between the devout religous and athiests is that they both interpret religious texts as literal truths

Nice one.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by General Ludd


Maybe I should rephrase that to be more clear. As an Agonistic, I know there isn't a god, but I do believe in god. What people argue about is not god, but the semantics surrounding god.

from dict.org (btw Agonistic != Agnostic):
Agnostic \Ag*nos"tic\, n.
One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any
knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism,
neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal
Deity, a future life, etc.

Atheism \A"the*ism\, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.]
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or
supreme intelligent Being.


So
Theist = I believe in God / There is God
Agnostic = Could be that there is God, could be not
Atheistic = I don't believe in God / There is no God

Agnosticism is not necessarily stating anything about what you believe. Ofc, it is assums that when you question God's existance that you are a non-believer. But in reality you could be agnostic and a believer as well. This would be a realistic-believer
Theist+Agnostic = Could be that there is, could be not, but I believe there is
Theist+Atheist = Could be that there is, could be not and I believe there is not

I think it's possible to seperate science and faith in your head. You know you cannot prove or deny the existance of god, but that you can believe there is (theist+agnostic) one or not (theist+atheist).
Actually these are what I'd call reasonable positions (someone else on this thread as well), while the two extreme positions (theist+atheist) are fanatical, because they cannot be justified logically.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by General Ludd
The similiarity between the devout religous and athiests is that they both interpret religious texts as literal truths, and that is what inevitably makes them arrogant / fanatic ******.

I can assure you that this atheist does not interpret religious texts as literal truths.

Yet you still call me arrogant and a fanatic.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
the two extreme positions (theist+atheist) are fanatical, because they cannot be justified logically.

Why must agnostics continually denounce atheists as fanatics for refusing to believe in the unprovable?

Its the same as being called a fanatic for refusing to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

[Atahualpa]

Yes, it's the same and yes you are "fanatic" (one could also say unreasonable), but not for "refusing to believe" which would imply that you SHOULD believe, but for not being objective about the matter. If you cannot prove for or against, but still promote one way you are fanatic, because your claim cannot be justified logically.

It's a bit of a Mr Spock position

[Cort Haus]

Who's being irrational?

Rational arguments have continually been presented here, but all that comes back is a repetition of:

"Thou MUST maybe-believe! "

I'm outa here to find some nice, sensible Jehova's Witnesses to have a conversation with.

:exasperation:

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by General Ludd


The similiarity between the devout religous and athiests is that they both interpret religious texts as literal truths...

I'm sorry but that's just rubbish.

Literalist interpretation of the Qu'ran or the Bible or the Hebrew scriptures is not common to all Muslims, Christians, or Jews.

Many followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism believe in their faith, but do not necessarily believe that every word of their sacred texts is literally true.

Literalism in Christianity was a relatively late development- you can certainly see it beginning in late 17th Century England, but it really takes off in the 19th Century in a big way- perhaps as a response to developments in the physical and theoretical sciences.

Mediaeval religion acknowledged the metaphorical, symbolic aspects of religion and religious language and imagery- as they did with objects in the real world, such as flowers, trees, jewels, semi-precious stones, pearls, and so forth- their world embraced a range of relationships that went beyond the merely literal.


I don't interpret religious texts as a literal truth- I do oppose the literalist approach to Biblical or other religious texts, because it robs them of layers of meanings, and is historically and scientifcally ludicrous and insulting.


And I'm an atheist, and neither devout, nor a fanatic about it- I believe many people derive comfort and security from religion and I support their right to practice their faith, but I don't believe that people's faith in the supernatural should be allowed to deprive me of my civil rights in a secular society.

[Az]

Molly: what's your opinion on people teaching/indoctrinating their children with religion?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Yes, it's the same and yes you are "fanatic" (one could also say unreasonable), but not for "refusing to believe" which would imply that you SHOULD believe, but for not being objective about the matter. If you cannot prove for or against, but still promote one way you are fanatic, because your claim cannot be justified logically.

Why so?
Why should I attempt to prove the inexistance of any supranatural explanation?
Am I a fanatic for not believing in Feng Shui?
Am I a fanatic for not believing African deities?
Am I a fanatic for not believing in reincarnation?
Should I spend my time disproving these beliefs?
If so, why?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
Molly: what's your opinion on people teaching/indoctrinating their children with religion?

I'd prefer it if a child could be left until they'd received some scientific instruction they could understand (though of course you'd still get the likes of Bush, Reagan and Blair), say until they were about 16 or 17, then let them choose what religion (if any) they'd like.

Of course that's just pie in the sky (the Holy Pi In The Sky ? ) because one reason religion succeeds is its grounding in communities and families, from cradle to grave.

As an ex-Catholic I'm well aware of the all encompassing pervasive nature of religion, and how difficult it is to reject it without necessarily being cut off from one's family or community.

For me, the experience of relinquishing religion's hold on me certainly made coming out somewhat easier.

I think it comes down to reason and doubt being harder and less attractive options than faith in the unprovable- mind you, I still claim Behzad, Bach, Tallis, Caravaggio and Michalengelo as my heritage too- why should religion get all the best painters and tunes ?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This reminds me of a doco. The reporter was interviewing some guy in Romania, and he said, "When we were under communism we had no money but we had plenty of food. Now we have money we don't have food."

I think you have it backwards.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Yes, it's the same and yes you are "fanatic" (one could also say unreasonable), but not for "refusing to believe" which would imply that you SHOULD believe, but for not being objective about the matter. If you cannot prove for or against, but still promote one way you are fanatic, because your claim cannot be justified logically.

You appear to fail to comprehend the basis of philosophical debate. The fundamental ground rule is "an assertion is taken to be false until proven otherwise." It is up to the proponents of an assertion to make the proof. Also, an assertion must be positive. IOW it is about the existence of something, some state, some entity, etc. Specifically, "God does not exist" is not an assertion (used in this narrow sense), but a denial of the assertion "God exists."

As a result, atheism is perfectly logical. In fact, it is the default ground state.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Why so?
Why should I attempt to prove the inexistance of any supranatural explanation?
Am I a fanatic for not believing in Feng Shui?
Am I a fanatic for not believing African deities?
Am I a fanatic for not believing in reincarnation?
Should I spend my time disproving these beliefs?
If so, why?

Ofc you can believe what you like. But you have to remember that to say "Feng Shui does not work" is exactly the same argumentation as "Feng Shui does work". Unless there exists a proof, nobody knows, you just want to have it that way.

fanatic is probably the wrong word, unreasonable is better, since you have no reason to believe either side. You're in a state of ignorance and must accept that. Well, "must" accept that. Ofc, you can claim to have found truth for anything you like, I won't hold you back.

Wether you want to spend your time disproving or proofing beliefs depends on wether they are important to you. Is Feng Shui relevant for you? Are african deities relevant to you? Reincarnation? If you can answer yes and you accept your state of ignorance, then you should spend your time on it. If you answered no or deny your state of ignorance, then it'd be a waste of time (for you).

In any case, stating that there might be a god is completely irrelevant to wether you need to believe in fairies. I don't see a need to be consistent and I can believe in extraterrestrials while I disbelieve in fairies. Both have as little in common as fairies and god.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You appear to fail to comprehend the basis of philosophical debate. The fundamental ground rule is "an assertion is taken to be false until proven otherwise." It is up to the proponents of an assertion to make the proof. Also, an assertion must be positive. IOW it is about the existence of something, some state, some entity, etc. Specifically, "God does not exist" is not an assertion (used in this narrow sense), but a denial of the assertion "God exists."

As a result, atheism is perfectly logical. In fact, it is the default ground state.

Well okay so I apply logic to your philosophical basis and get:
God exists is a denial of the assertion that God does not exist.... whereas you said that "God does not exist is a denial of the assertion that God exists"

A = not(not(A))
not(not(A)) = A
I think we can agree, that both are the same and that thus Atheism is NOT perfectly logical. Thx for reading!

[Odin]

Neither hard Atheism nor Theism are falsifiable, therefore, Agnosticism is the only logical choice.