IrishWhiskey - 2013-05-22
The truth ain't like puppies, a bunch of them running around, you pick your favorite.
|
IrishWhiskey - 2013-05-22 Is there any argument more pointless and stupid than the "if you admit some definition of gods are possible, you aren't an atheist"?
Could you be wrong about God? When then I guess you aren't a theist. Yay, religion just disappeared, I win! I mean, I didn't change any minds or prove anything, but I'll count it as a win because labels matter more than ideas!
|
sasazuka - 2013-05-22
There is a word for those of us non-believers that acknowledge the possibility of gods, no matter how remote, "agnostic".
Also, the "you admit your students don't know everything, say they know 5% of the truth, do they acknowledge the chance that god exists in the other 95% they don't know?" classic "Appeal to ignorance" logical fallacy. Almost textbook perfect.
|
|
IrishWhiskey - 2013-05-22 Agnostic just means you think a claim isn't known. It has nothing to do with whether you believe it, or whether you care about it, and it's not even specific to gods.
If one can agree a person is a theist when they believe, regardless of whether they know (through revelation for example), it should be obvious a person is atheist if they don't believe, regardless of whether they think it's known.
|
The Great Hippo - 2013-05-22 I actually really like a term somebody introduced me to recently; 'Ignostic'.
It basically means you think the question 'Is there a God?' is a poorly formed one.
|
|
baleen - 2013-05-22 Socrates was an atheist. It was one of the reasons he was executed.
Actually, what he did was question the relationship that gods had with people, with one another, and with the state. The last was the biggest no-no. Socrates spends a lot of time dissecting the popular understanding of the Gods and placing believers in uncomfortable places. See his conversation with Adeimantus for a prime example of this. By questioning practically every aspect of God it is possible to situate the concept in a way that is appropriate for the place, time, and society where it is needed. I think Socrates new that, but it was too dangerous an idea.
The New Atheism of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens is not the only atheism. The dictionary is not a primary source on the history of atheism. That's why New Atheism has its own special name.
I'd say Socratic Atheism is far more dangerous to both New Atheism and religious fundamentalism.
|
|
Kieran27 - 2013-05-22 What annoys me most about the whole "You only know 5% of the truth..." argument is this pastor who freely admits to not being a professor (and likely has little higher education) knows much less than 5%, and he's very comfortable NOT seeking out more knowledge.
Most scientists, professors and university students freely acknowledge they don't know everything, and are actively working to expand their knowledge. This fellow just says "God is the answer" and feels that explains enough. For him, and for anyone else.
|
Bort - 2013-05-22
I find that a more practical distinction between theist, agnostic, and atheist is their basic leaning. Matt Dillahunty calls himself an atheist even though he concedes the hypothetical possibility of a god; by a strict definition that could make him an agnostic, but in the end he doesn't think there's a god, so atheist.
Someone who concedes there's no evidence of gods, yet believes in one or more, is still a theist. Someone who is caught between and is characterized by doubt of both positions is an agnostic.
There's a fourth category too, people who see the entire debate as pointless and irrelevant; I'd have to call them atheists too, since they don't elevate a hypothetical God to the point of even mattering.
|
B. Weed - 2013-05-22 I'd once heard the term "apatheist" to refer to someone who felt it didn't MATTER if there was a god(s) or not as long as people behaved as if they did (it's a bit like that old joke about the rock that keeps tigers away).
|
|
cognitivedissonance - 2013-05-22
Part of the problem is if you say "I like God, just not the God you're telling me about," they call you a Satanist. Happened to me once.
|
Xenocide - 2013-05-22
"Hypothetical: if you had a choice between being tortured to death by nazi cannibals, or getting fifty dollars from a unicorn, which would you choose?"
"Um, the unicorn?"
"SO YOU BELIEVE IN UNICORNS, DO YOU?"
|
Kieran27 - 2013-05-22
"If those were your only two choices and both were believable, which would you choose?"
"I wouldn't make a choice until I knew which was true and which was false, otherwise it is no better than flipping a coin. Belief has nothing to do with truth."
|
Hooker - 2013-05-22 It's a much simplier problem than that. The Bible is not believable.
|
Nyms Lives! - 2013-05-24
For people who claim to care about the Ten Commandments so much, evangelicals seem quite fond of breaking the ninth.
|
Register or login To Post a Comment |