On The Contrary

[Wiz]

A handful of the smartest  and most civil people in the world

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E

[Archael]

ppl are going to start to think you're my alt or something

[Kaijyuu]

(I only watch like, the first 75% of that video. Looks like a 12 part series and no way I'm going to watch all of those...)

Religions are naturally going to be constructed in a way that wards off critical analysis. That's not a huge revelation. It's not that religions actively avoid logic or anything (well, most of the time), but rather that they're dealing with the supernatural, which by definition cannot be proven. Of course their answers are going to be rooted in the supernatural and rely on faith. You can't critically analyze something like that because there's no evidence to analyze (assuming you're analyzing religion in general and not one single religion with claims of evidence).

As for the "taking offense" thing, they kinda missed the heart of why people get offended when their faith is questioned. It's not just the question of whether they've wasted their lives that offends them. Religions inspire reverence to individual(s) (fictional or no) and hope for the future, which are two powerful and very personal emotions. Questioning someone's religion is questioning that hope and reverence. It is just as offensive as pointing out issues with their face (which was an analogy they used), because it's just as personal (if not more so).


Personally I'm agnostic and think the whole debate is pointless. It's like debating whether Sam Gamgee (or any other character/story you make up) exists in a galaxy far far away/another dimension/whatever. The answer's always going to be maybe but probably not*, and it's not worth arguing over either way. Believe what you like and stop bickering.

The only time it's worth it to lift a finger in these things is when someone's imposing their opinion of unprovable things on others. Or maybe if you just wanna debate about something futile, like what I'm doing right now.

*Unless you think infinite universe = everything exists, but that's kinda missing the point.

[Archael]

You can't critically analyze something like that because there's no evidence to analyze

the lack of evidence for something suggests falsehood in the first place, and not "oh well there's no evidence for it so let's assume it's possible and leave it alone"

And you say you're Agnostic? Agnostic OF WHAT? Your usage of the word in this way seems to suggest that you aren't even sure what it means

It sounds like throwing around the word agnostic to yell neutrality and avoid confrontation, but without communicating any information whatsoever about what your position really is.


I would reply to the rest of your post but it seems that you've taken a comfortable stance of just letting things be because it's easier that way, easier than actually demanding proof from people who make these absolutely humongous claims about the world, and that's OK too, but don't call it futile when others try and slap delusion out of the less educated portions of society (like the people in that video do)

hint: saying "I'm agnostic" alone doesn't say ANYTHING about what it is you claim to know / not know

[Wiz]

I think he meant to say was he is an agnostic Voldemort. Essentially it's a person who doesn't have definitive belief as to whether a deity or deities exist and therefore doesn't have a formulated  and definitive opinion/ no position on them. In other words, St. Ajora's (Yes I typed it in you bastard Zodiac) existence to an Agnostic is unknown to them.

The reason why I brought up religion from the last thread is because I wanted to show a theologic-based extremist and then ask as to whether I should help him out at all by putting his disingenious "I'm better than u crazy fucking athiests mwahahah" attitude (rather more of a raid from Yaweh!) to a ceasefire. Don't get me wrong, there are Atheists as well who prob say "I know for fact NO GOD'S exist" and exhibit the same level of ignorance. It's just whenever I search the web (mostly YT) I don't hear that sentiment from an atheist coming out at all.

TAA from YT attempts to show that he definitively knows the Christian St. Ajora (I did it again... you fucker) because the way he's characterized in the bible disproves the he's not "all-knowing".

Here are some quotes saying he isn't
Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)  

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)  

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)  

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)  

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)  

source:http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

Although these may be directly from the bible, taking the word from a couple authors a few thousand years ago is pretty sketchy. This is where I disagree w/ TJ because they could be wrong for all we know, and maybe God just wanted people to think that he thought the world was flat for whatever reason that may be.


TIME TO DIRECTLY RESPOND TO SOME OF YOUR SUBSTANCE.

"As for the "taking offense" thing, they kinda missed the heart of why people get offended when their faith is questioned. It's not just the question of whether they've wasted their lives that offends them. Religions inspire reverence to individual(s) (fictional or no) and hope for the future, which are two powerful and very personal emotions. Questioning someone's religion is questioning that hope and reverence. It is just as offensive as pointing out issues with their face (which was an analogy they used), because it's just as personal (if not more so)."

The only issue I have here is when you said religions inspired reverence. Your theologic upbringings don't teach you about respect so you can flounder it as well. I know this from experience by attending the 1st two years of HS at one of the most prestigious private schools here in MN. When I was there, I was subjected to the Catholic Faith and it's bias' yes, but they didn't enforce the principle of "treat other the way you want to be treated", because that deals with social ethics and not morality. Morality and religion go hand-in hand while ethics and society are unified. Just think, about 90 years ago, the standard that women couldn't vote was acceptable in the United States and today people look at that and laugh about how stupid it was of us. Religion's the same way and as technology advances foward with great speed, maybe some day the existence of St. Ajora will be verified, which leads me to to my next tid bit.

Oh, and here's the website of my school http://cadets.com/

"Personally I'm agnostic and think the whole debate is pointless. It's like debating whether Sam Gamgee (or any other character/story you make up) exists in a galaxy far far away/another dimension/whatever. The answer's always going to be maybe but probably not*, and it's not worth arguing over either way. Believe what you like and stop bickering."

Arch already addressed the bickering and dissension issues so that's not necessary. But anyways, I actually believe the God(s) debate is important because if we as fellow humans can come to a primitive take on the issue, many civil wars along with other discourse will be reduced in appearances and length. To extrapilate upon that, more compotent theologians will emerge and be more willing to pitch in towards this discussion.

If it turns out that God comes down and announces his realism, then I'll throw my hands up in the air and say to doubters
choosing not believe in something's existence even though it does is nuts. Same goes for the StarTrek Universe and it's Tartkan language or w.e it's called as well as the World of the Hobbits and etc...

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY!!! Even if let's say Yaweh existed, it doesn't mean I would convert to Christianity and it's principles. I would feel sad and sick to my stomach if he/they were real because what that means for me and everyone else on the planet is that he/they've watched us play with our balls/tits and try to lick them (insert perverted action) like any sick person would dream of being able to do (e.g. MOST Republicans and some Democrats like Bill Clinton and John Edwards, just to name a few).

Lastly, I agree shutting-up people who impose their beliefs upon you while leaving bystandards alone is a good idea. I wouldn't go up on the street to someone and ask them what their religious beliefs are. That would be another example of social ethics or what I like to call being courteous to others.

Voldemort: Though your act of kindess is charming indeed, it had a 0% effect on me. It might work on Zodiac though for he is not for certain fully male as his avatar suggests otherwise.

[Archael]

I think he meant to say was he is an agnostic Voldemort. Essentially it's a person who doesn't have definitive belief as to whether a deity or deities exist and therefore doesn't have a formulated  and definitive opinion/ no position on them. In other words, St. Ajora's (Yes I typed it in you bastard Zodiac) existence to an Agnostic is unknown to them.

I know what Agnosticism means. I was just pointing out that stating Agnosticism alone doesn't actually say anything about your position.

Agnostic = Truth value of X claim is unknowable
Gnostic = Truth value of X claim is knowable

Are you an Agnostic Theist? You believe in a g0d(s) but you don't claim to KNOW of it's existence? IE: Unknowable g0d claim that you believe in.
Are you an Agnostic Atheist? You don't believe in a g0d(s) but you don't claim to KNOW it's non-existence? IE: Unknowable g0d claim that you don't believe in.
Are you an Gnostic Theist? You believe in a g0d(s) and you claim to KNOW of it's existence? IE: Knowable, personal g0d that you believe in.
etc etc

What are you Agnostic of? Pizza? Odin? Ju Ju? Jesus? Microwave ovens? Religions?

When you simply say "I'm an Agnostic" it doesn't SAY anything.

Essentially it's a person who doesn't have definitive belief as to whether a deity or deities exist and therefore

Agnosticism refers to knowledge, not beliefs, or rather the differentiation between the two.

From Wikipedia:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims--especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims--is unknown or unknowable.

[/i]

But anyways, I actually believe the St. Ajora(s) debate is important

I agree with you that the debate on the existence of deities is extremely important, BTW. Beliefs affect people's actions. Beliefs (religious and non religious) can have a profound impact on the ideologies that ultimately control your behavior and the things you spend your life on.

A mind that adheres to doctrines based on faith without evidence will function completely different than one that functions based on evidence and logic.

[Wiz]

K , well I'm looking at M-W.com and it says this "on the contrary"

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

while dictionary.reference.com says

-a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
- a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Correct if I'm wrong here, but it seems like this isn't a black or white (u do or don't believe in a God as you suggested) issue, but rather a grey one because ur stance could be unknown like in the definitions provided above.


I wasn't trying to pick a fight and say u didn't know what you were talking about and argue over the semantics of agnosticism It's just a misinterpretation on my part. Well, maybe I'll just have to look at the term a little deeper by focusing on you e.gs and if I'm still stumped, I'll bring my points up.

[Archael]

Those definitions are correct, and don't conflict with what it says on Wikipedia

they do conflict with this that you posted earlier though:

Essentially it's a person who doesn't have definitive belief as to whether a deity or deities exist

Did you read my previous post? I'm saying that agnosticism doesn't have to do with belief but with knowledge

the definitions you are posting agree with what I'm saying

Correct if I'm wrong here, but it seems like this isn't a black or white (u do or don't believe in a St. Ajora as you suggested) issue, but rather a grey one because ur stance could be unknown like in the definitions provided above.

??? WTF? I didn't say that it's a case of you do or don't believe... I'm not sure you understood my post, man

I said that it's a case of you whether you claim that it's KNOWABLE or UNKNOWABLE


if Kaijyuu says "I'm an agnostic" he's saying that he thinks something is unknowable

but what? I assume the existence of a g0d(s)?

[Wiz]

Swiftly yes, I should've slowed down to allow myself the chance to digress your input... srry

I get what you mean now...(the def agnosticism i.e.) ... I just thought that at time an Kaijyuu was just an "agnostic" that's all.
But yeah, he's an agnostic of theology.

[Wiz]

Sh*t, I've been double posting by accident, srry

[Xifanie]

This video inspired me a lot. I want to write a book now...
With many, many primary characters. Each of the characters would exist in a world where no atheism exist, and they would all need to confront themselves to other religions, but by far their own. All this to show the true nature of religion: how it limits one's existence and predefines one's way of living, removing all their liberty. And while doing this, show passively how nearly everything in religion (heaven, hell, sins, myths, stories) are just a copy/paste of what can be found in other religions. Of course there would be space for revision of the holy laws (most obvious example being the bible).

[Shade]

Agnosticism refers to knowledge, not beliefs, or rather the differentiation between the two.

And knowledge refers to beliefs.

[philsov]

Obligatory preachy comic picture since you're talking about 4 horsemen

spoiler

[Archael]

Agnosticism refers to knowledge, not beliefs, or rather the differentiation between the two.

And knowledge refers to beliefs.

um, no... knowledge refers to knowledge

I can believe that there's aliens out there, and not know if it's true... I don't know if there's any out there, but I can still believe it

just like there's people who believe in aliens and claim to KNOW they exist because of contact they have had with them

being able to verify something with your senses isn't the same as just believing it without any sort of proof

[Shade]

You belief in knowledge. You can't say 100% that something is true no matter what, do we exist or not and do we have soul. Atheist usually(never seen atheist that hasn't) belief in knowledge.

So I am pretty sure that knowledge refers to beliefs.

[Archael]

Not this argument again :/

The only thing you and I as conscious beings can agree to "KNOW" is that which we can both observe... that is.. demonstrable evidence which you can verify with your own senses

to say that nothing is knowable because it's impossible to know it 100% is right, it really is impossible to know if our senses are all just being fooled and we're actually all in the matrix

but as far as you and I and the language we communicate in are concerned, the meaning of KNOWING and BELIEVING are different - and this language and demonstrable evidence is the only common ground we have when it comes time to share information

don't try to argue that they are the same, because as far as you and I are concerned, you haven't proven that our senses are deceiving us, so we are forced to start on SOME common ground, and that is that the things that you can verify with your senses are knowable by your consciousness,

and the things which you can't are taken on faith... you BELIEVE them. But you don't KNOW them

trying to equate every piece of knowledge known by human senses to beliefs is absurd, and is a huge cop out to try and say that anything we claim to know is taken on faith

the fact is that the way our consciousness works we can differentiate between the two

your argument might hold some importance the day we find out that our senses are 100% unreliable, and that we never really knew that 2+2 = 4

until then, be reasonable

[Dome]

Obligatory preachy comic picture since you're talking about 4 horsemen

spoiler

Awesome

[Shade]

Of course Believe and knowledge are diffrent things. But still knowledge referf to beliefs. I can't get why you can't relate them. Without beliefs no knowledge. I mean people don't still believe that evolution is true, even if it is a fact, so they don't knowledge this and refuse to believe.

[philsov]

because some people are close-minded, bigoted idiots.

Not believing in evolution because of the lack evidence towards major, macro changes is fine -- in fact, scientifically welcome.  But the default position is "unknown", not one of religious stance.

Refusal to accept certain facts because they are in direct conflict with faith-based assumptions whilst plugging your ears and sticking your head in the ground is a different story completely.  Similarly using the lack of evidence towards one argument as a positive support for the other (ie, evolution can't explain this, therefore it must be $deity$) is just logically inconsistent.  And I have no clue how to fix either of these two situations =\

Side note: I wish Bertrand Russell were alive today.  Dawkins is a punk.

[Wiz]

This video inspired me a lot. I want to write a book now...
With many, many primary characters. Each of the characters would exist in a world where no atheism exist, and they would all need to confront themselves to other religions, but by far their own. All this to show the true nature of religion: how it limits one's existence and predefines one's way of living, removing all their liberty. And while doing this, show passively how nearly everything in religion (heaven, hell, sins, myths, stories) are just a copy/paste of what can be found in other religions. Of course there would be space for revision of the holy laws (most obvious example being the bible).

It would be more epic if the setting took place on an island (based off of the "Lost" series) with one die-hard Catholic, Lutheran, protestant, and one for every other minor religion and see if they could get along. Only problem I see though is if you could somehow prevent them from killing each other in the name of their diety(ies) and because of their superstitious beliefs.

@ Dome: That was exactly my thought

@ Phil: Of the four, only Hitchens could possibly come close to Betrand Russel.