Thread: Argue Pointlessly over the Definition of Atheism

LOL! This is the coolest thread ever.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

...is a belief that the redundant nature of nature's redundancy is indeed linear; an intellectual hypocricy of self fulfilling prophecies guided by the misinterpreted reactions of common chemical conductivities, and nothing more.

I'm going to pray for you guys

Make sure to mention I want a DSi.

Originally Posted by sloth

Incorrect. Babies do not believe that anything is unknowable. They are not agnostic.

Two things, since you don't seem to read what you quote:

1) From my post that YOU quoted: I would not say babies are agnostic, because they haven't asserted that they believe that you can't know.

2) YOU are the one that said babies are agnostic. Here, I'll quote your old post:

Originally Posted by sloth

Originally Posted by replicon

What word do you use to describe "a lack of belief in god" if not atheist? Non-theist? Well, no, because technically deists are non-theists. Non-deist, maybe?

I would call that an "agnostic", as according to Merriam Webster (both of them):

Actually if you think about it, Agnosticism is as close to "a lack of belief" that one could get.

Originally Posted by sloth

If I make my post so unintelligible that nobody can understand it, will I sound smrt? ...or...

If you don't understand my simple statement, then just ask me and I'll be more than happy to explain it to you, champ.

Make sure to mention I want a DSi.

You got it!

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Actually if you think about it, Agnosticism is as close to "a lack of belief" that one could get.

Agnosticism is a statement about knowability, not belief. And by "knowability" I don't mean "the feeling of certainty" but objective, irrefutable, repeatably-demonstrable proof.

"certainty" is an irrational feeling, and "knowledge" (the objective kind I just described) can fuel it, but it isn't necessary. The feeling that is "certainty" can exist without any conclusive evidence. That's what "faith" is, by definition.

But you CAN have agnosticism without having a lack of belief. I know many, many astute christians who readily acknowledge that they don't "know" objectively, and conclusively, that there is a god, and in fact, that they cannot know objectively and conclusively. However, they have faith/belief/certainty that there is a god, which doesn't require said proof. They are agnostic christians, and there is nothing contradictory about it. They don't really call themselves that, because calling yourself "christian" is sufficient.

Originally Posted by Replicon

Agnosticism is a statement about knowability, not belief. And by "knowability" I don't mean "the feeling of certainty" but objective, irrefutable, repeatably-demonstrable proof.

"certainty" is an irrational feeling, and "knowledge" (the objective kind I just described) can fuel it, but it isn't necessary. The feeling that is "certainty" can exist without any conclusive evidence. That's what "faith" is, by definition.

But you CAN have agnosticism without having a lack of belief. I know many, many astute christians who readily acknowledge that they don't "know" objectively, and conclusively, that there is a god, and in fact, that they cannot know objectively and conclusively. However, they have faith/belief/certainty that there is a god, which doesn't require said proof. They are agnostic christians, and there is nothing contradictory about it. They don't really call themselves that, because calling yourself "christian" is sufficient.

I just came here to post about this very point, only to realize you beat me to it nearly two weeks in advance. I was watching a video on YouTube by ThereminTrees titled "God: The Conscious Universe," and it's as if you watched the same video. The way you phrase the agnosticism-atheism dichotomy is similar to the way ThereminTrees phrases it:

A brief note on this. You say in your video: "I was first atheist, then I was agnostic." Atheism and agnosticism are addressing two quite separate issues. Atheism and theism are addressing the question of what you believe. Agnosticism is addressing the debate about what is knowable. So, you can be a Christian-agnostic believing in God, but feeling that the answer to whether he exists is ultimately unknowable.

I quite like the point both you and ThereminTrees make. The way it's presented is very effective in pointing out the difference between the two concepts.

Thanks Blue! I actually hadn't seen that video, but I'll check it out soon.

I love it:



It even hits on the nonsense Philosopher4326756325643 brings up all the time like calling trees "atheists."

Edit - Seriously, the video is a freaking visual representation of everything said in this thread.

Originally Posted by Replicon

But you CAN have agnosticism without having a lack of belief. I know many, many astute christians who readily acknowledge that they don't "know" objectively, and conclusively, that there is a god, and in fact, that they cannot know objectively and conclusively. However, they have faith/belief/certainty that there is a god, which doesn't require said proof. They are agnostic christians, and there is nothing contradictory about it. They don't really call themselves that, because calling yourself "christian" is sufficient.

Actually this doesn't make sense. You cannot have 2 different categorizations at the exact same time. You cannot have certainty and be unsure at the exact same time, it's actually impossible.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

A brief note on this. You say in your video: "I was first atheist, then I was agnostic." Atheism and agnosticism are addressing two quite separate issues. Atheism and theism are addressing the question of what you believe. Agnosticism is addressing the debate about what is knowable. So, you can be a Christian-agnostic believing in God, but feeling that the answer to whether he exists is ultimately unknowable.

I quite like the point both you and ThereminTrees make. The way it's presented is very effective in pointing out the difference between the two concepts.

It's not effective for the exact same reason as I gave replicon, you cannot get around categorization no matter how you look at it.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I love it:

[video=youtube;sNDZb0KtJDk]
Edit - Seriously, the video is a freaking visual representation of everything said in this thread.

It may be a visualization of what's being said but since we already know what the topic is all about here the video is quite pointless not to mention highly inaccurate. One inaccuracy is based off the statement that God "needs" to be worshiped. This is actually untrue. God doesn't "Need" worship. Another flaw was the attempt to categorize babies as having a correlation of their lack of belief to that of an Atheist. We've already closed the lid on that one. So the video is actually pointless. Actually this entire thread hasn't had any sound relevance toward the real issue here with regards to "lack of belief". Let me ask you this Blueline. You have a Lack of Belief in a God right? What is your lack of belief based on?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Actually this doesn't make sense. You cannot have 2 different categorizations at the exact same time. You cannot have certainty and be unsure at the exact same time, it's actually impossible.

Sorry, my wording was ambiguous there, even though the paragraph before should have set the spirit of the message.

By "unsure" I meant "lacking objectively demonstrable-to-others, repeatable evidence" and by "certainty" I meant "the feeling of certainty" - that FEELING, in an of itself, can exist without objective evidence, and religious faith is an example where that is the case.

So the message was that christians feel the feeling of certainty, without having objective knowledge, which makes them agnostic. That's not a bad thing, but it's an interesting way of looking at it. The purpose of the whole line of thought was to explain that "agnostic" really has _everything_ to do with knowability, rather than "belief or lack thereof." Also, hopefully, it clears things up for people who mistakenly think "agnostic" somehow means "on the fence".

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

It's not effective for the exact same reason as I gave replicon, you cannot get around categorization no matter how you look at it.

I don't know how you missed what Replicon said in the beginning of his post, but it addresses this point. It's not about being unsure, it's about what is knowable.

It may be a visualization of what's being said but since we already know what the topic is all about here the video is quite pointless not to mention highly inaccurate.

The video is supplementary; for clarification purposes should one be confused about the distinction we are making.

One inaccuracy is based off the statement that God "needs" to be worshiped. This is actually untrue. God doesn't "Need" worship.

Why is it untrue?

Another flaw was the attempt to categorize babies as having a correlation of their lack of belief to that of an Atheist. We've already closed the lid on that one.

Well, are you going to explain yourself or just throw stuff into the wind? You help no one by stating "this is a flaw, we've talked about it. Case closed." without explaining why its a flaw or how we've closed the lid on it.

Actually this entire thread hasn't had any sound relevance toward the real issue here with regards to "lack of belief".

Why not?

Let me ask you this Blueline. You have a Lack of Belief in a God right? What is your lack of belief based on?

What relevance is this?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Actually this doesn't make sense. You cannot have 2 different categorizations at the exact same time.

I am right now in the category of people that are not wearing socks and in the category of people that are wearing shorts.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

One inaccuracy is based off the statement that God "needs" to be worshiped. This is actually untrue. God doesn't "Need" worship.

O rly? If you're going to accept the Christian notion of a god, down to the ten commandments, you need not look any further than the first four (of which there are multiple versions).
*Which* Ten Commandments?

If you wish to be taken seriously by anyone ever again, you will not mention that site title. But I digress. The general gist of the first four is as follows:
1. I am your Lord God. You shall worship none but me. [Well now, this is strange. Why would a perfect god care what humans are worshiping, if anything?]
2. No graven images. And don't bow down to them or serve them, because I'm a jealous prick and your religion is my business. [Uh, yeah...]
3. Do not take my name in vain. [The common alternate to the above. Again, why would an all-powerful, all-loving, perfect being give a flying rat's ass if people use his name in vain? This is incompatible with perfection.]
4. Keep the sabbath holy. [This is one that is actually open to interpretation. It could mean taking the day off, or it could mean worshiping god. Either way, once again, you have a supposedly perfect being getting all worked up over such a trivial matter. It's not even a decent moral guideline. It's arbitrary, and serves no purpose beyond mass control of a population.]

I can just see you pulling some crap like "You're not perfect, so you can't possibly comprehend what perfection is." So I'm gonna stop you right there. If you think for a minute that perfection involves killing people for stupid reasons or confining them to eternal torture for employing logic and rational thought, or for simply having the bad luck of not believing in the one incredibly specific god that you do, then you are a sick fuck. There are not words to describe what a terrible person you are. And yet despite this, I would still not wish hell upon you or anyone else. It's called compassion, and being the bigger man. Something your god is apparently incapable of.

Originally Posted by Replicon

Sorry, my wording was ambiguous there, even though the paragraph before should have set the spirit of the message.

By "unsure" I meant "lacking objectively demonstrable-to-others, repeatable evidence" and by "certainty" I meant "the feeling of certainty" - that FEELING, in an of itself, can exist without objective evidence, and religious faith is an example where that is the case.

That's the problem right there "lacking objectively demonstrable-to-others". This doesn't make one unsure. Evidence that would be sufficient for you, however, lacking or absent completely doesn't change that person's feelings of certainity and it doesn't make them "unsure". It makes YOU unsure. Where I come from being unsure about something means that you do not know one way or the other because one of two different factors hasn't been presented 1) You're unaware of a particular concept as in ignorance. 2) Sufficient evidence hasn't presented itself to allow YOU (as in self) to make a determination.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I don't know how you missed what Replicon said in the beginning of his post, but it addresses this point. It's not about being unsure, it's about what is knowable.

read what I typed to Replicon.

Originally Posted by Blueline

Why is it untrue?

Because the speaker has it backwards. It's human-beings that "need" to worship God not that God "needs" human-beings to worship him. If not one single human worshiped God it will not diminish his Glory not one iota.

Originally Posted by Blueline

Well, are you going to explain yourself or just throw stuff into the wind? You help no one by stating "this is a flaw, we've talked about it. Case closed." without explaining why its a flaw or how we've closed the lid on it.

What's to explain it's pretty apparent actually and yes I thought that portion of the argument was shut because it's ridiculous and you know it. However, this is the point. Your claim of your lack of belief is not the same as a baby the absurdity in this has already been demonstrated. (which I stated before) Your's is not a derivative of ignorance. So in short babies are not Atheist. You were not born Atheist. Atheism is a "choice".

Originally Posted by Blueline

Why not?

Because when I ask you a question in relation to the topic of this thread you answer it with a question like below. So in short we essentially get nowhere.

Originally Posted by Blueline

What relevance is this?

You're an Atheist who has a "lack of belief" in a God right? Unless you're not an Atheist then this question has no relevance to you. But if you are an Atheist, then what are you basing your "lack of belief" on?

Originally Posted by PhilospherStoned

I am right now in the category of people that are not wearing socks and in the category of people that are wearing shorts.

You know what I mean. You can't be unsure about God's existence and in the same instance have certainty about God's existence at the exact same time. Stop being a bobble-head. :p

None of those are requirements to worship god. The first is a commandment not to worship other gods. 2 is to not worship false idols (any idol or image is a false one). 3 is about false representation to your fellow man; taking the lord's name in vain is the same as claiming god is behind your actions when it is not true. 4 is, as you have said, about not working on the sabbath. The catholic version is the only one that leaves any sort of interpretation since it doesn't elaborate, but I'm sure you can read the other ones and see that there isn't much room for a "worship me" interpretation.

It is mentioned throughout the bible that god is jealous, implying he wants you to worship him and not other things, etc.

Which is the same thing as demanding worship. Why would a perfect being be jealous?

Don't answer that- because I know, it doesn't make any fucking sense. That's why I stopped taking it seriously. Also I am disappointed people still feel the need to continue to feed trolls like Ne-Yo.

*sigh*

Have you ever had a jealous ex-girlfriend who didn't want you but got angry if she saw you with someone else? She is jealous even though she doesn't want your attention either. I'm not saying god doesn't want your worship, but only that jealousy doesn't necessarily mean that he does either.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Also I am disappointed people still feel the need to continue to feed trolls like Ne-Yo.*sigh*

You feel like I'm a troll then stop bickering about it and take action. You are always welcome to put me on ignore if you don't like to see my post. In the same way I put that troll Mario92 on ignore. I didn't grip about it like you're doing I took action.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Have you ever had a jealous ex-girlfriend who didn't want you but got angry if she saw you with someone else? She is jealous even though she doesn't want your attention either. I'm not saying god doesn't want your worship, but only that jealousy doesn't necessarily mean that he does either.

Right, but my point was also that a perfect being would not be jealous.

Originally Posted by TheFreeDicitonary

jeal·ous (jls)
adj.
1. Fearful or wary of being supplanted; apprehensive of losing affection or position.
2.
a. Resentful or bitter in rivalry; envious: jealous of the success of others.
b. Inclined to suspect rivalry.
3. Having to do with or arising from feelings of envy, apprehension, or bitterness: jealous thoughts.
4. Vigilant in guarding something: We are jealous of our good name.
5. Intolerant of disloyalty or infidelity; autocratic: a jealous God.

Perhaps god uses definition number 4?

How does that fit into the statement

Originally Posted by God

I am a jealous god

What is he vigilant in guarding? What would be the point for his interest in where humanity's 'Loyalty' lay? What does he lose from people worshiping 'false' gods that he feels the need to vigilantly guard against this?

Furthermore, if he does lose something, then doesn't that still make him an imperfect being? Since obviously not all humans worship him.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

That's the problem right there "lacking objectively demonstrable-to-others". This doesn't make one unsure.

Right. I conceded that "unsure" was not the right choice of words (since "unsure" is an irrational feeling just like certainty), and replaced it with something more specific. The rest of your paragraph makes the assumption that my replacement was actually a synonym. I'm not gonna have an argument with you about semantic nonsense, even in a thread dedicated to it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Have you ever had a jealous ex-girlfriend who didn't want you but got angry if she saw you with someone else? She is jealous even though she doesn't want your attention either. I'm not saying god doesn't want your worship, but only that jealousy doesn't necessarily mean that he does either.

Is god not above such petty human emotions? I mean, maybe he just needs to sit down with a soap opera and a bucket of ice cream. That helps some women cope all the time.