News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Quest for Truth

Started by Absolute_Agent, June 16, 2019, 09:02:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Absolute_Agent



Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 05:10:18 PM
Well said in the first part.  You surprise me.  Well, my logic WAS irrefutable.

As the the rest, yes Jefferson read non-christian religious texts.  So have I.  He explored other ideas.

Ah John Adams., a spirititual ancestor so to speak.  That is some quote.  But what you don't realize is that it comes from a motivational letter he sent to the Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798.  1798?  Yes.  Nothing to do with the Constitution.  He was basically imploring the local militia to arm and feed themselves, as the US Govt had no funds.  He was begging them in terms they  might respond to. 

What do you think now?

It seems that we are compatible in terms of a methodology for interpretation, notwithstanding we start from different assumptions. It's important to be open-minded and that's one thing I see we have in common.

You explain away any type of theistic verbiage as if it was pure rhetoric not from the heart.  As you must, in order to make America work for you.  But don't we all.  Nevertheless you work for America and for me, because I wouldn't want the dominant religion to become a political force--and you know what religion I'm talking about.  I wouldn't want any religion to be in power, not even my own.  Personally, atheists help keep me honest with myself, and that's a good thing.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Absolute_Agent

#496
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 09, 2019, 02:17:35 AM
It was. Doesn't mean it is not true.
As to your earlier reply though. You are wrong, it is not just a philosophical distinction. The problem is you can't separate atheism from antitheism, maybe simply because many atheist also become antitheistic.
It seems like a minor distinction to you, maybe, but it is why you can't accept Sweden or other Scandinavian countries as 'atheist' countries. While they are. While many here are indeed antitheistic, myself included, very few would want a country or government that were truly antitheistic, rather atheist in nature and fully separated in it's proceedings and working manner from church. Indeed a fully szcularized nation without predisposition to allow special features for institutions of religion is an atheist nation.
Just not an antitheist one. Which is what you fear we al want because many of us are antitheist.
But our right to antitheism stops, as we here would mostly agree, where your right to theism starts. As in: my right to swing my fist in this free country of mine, stops at your face.

Yeah, so it's easier to prevent future fists  swinging if we talk things out, wouldn't you say?  I never said your philosophical distinction was not true, yet I have met very few non anti-theist atheists. (There's a tongue twister).  I consider Cavebear an exception.  Counting him there are now two that I personally know of.  I consider myself a non anti-atheist theist (another tongue twister).

A political party is a different beast though.  Communism would be atheist because it derives from Marxism, which looks upon theistic religion unfavorably.  Therefore in China, all religion is heavily controlled and suppressed, such that they are effectively puppets of anti-theistic state religion.

Sweden etc., are what I would call secular.  They don't take any stance for or against religion.  They simply don't interfere and the state does not purport to be a substitute for religion.  That people are religious is understood and accepted implicitly. 

The US is also secular in that the government is not controlled by any religion.  The only difference as you rightly pointed out is that religion is favored through tax breaks etc.  Americans are very religious.  It fits the character of the nation.  It's logical because most who came here came for freedom to practice their religions.  This is why America came into existence.  We want to protect religion.

Back to this dilemma about what exactly is an atheist.  I'm still trying to figure it out.  Because many atheists are saying to the effect, "we aren't atheist, we're agnostic." Here are my definitions, which many atheists would take issue with:

1.  Atheist: believes there is no God(s)
2.  Agnostic: neither believes there is God(s) nor believes there is not.  No position stated.
3. Theist: believes God(s) exist

Would you slice it up differently?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 08:47:26 AM

1.  Atheist: believes there is no God(s)


Would you slice it up differently?



Atheist: there is a LACK of evidence in proving the existence of a deity.

Absolute_Agent

#498
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 09:05:33 AM
Atheist: there is a LACK of evidence in proving the existence of a deity.
"There is evidence for God everywhere.  Modern science is handicapped by the unfounded underlying assumptions of material causality and human supremacism."

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Mike Cl

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 08:47:26 AM
Yeah, so it's easier to prevent future fists  swinging if we talk things out, wouldn't you say?  I never said your philosophical distinction was not true, yet I have met very few non anti-theist atheists. (There's a tongue twister).  I consider Cavebear an exception.  Counting him there are now two that I personally know of.  I consider myself a non anti-atheist theist (another tongue twister).

A political party is a different beast though.  Communism would be atheist because it derives from Marxism, which looks upon theistic religion unfavorably.  Therefore in China, all religion is heavily controlled and suppressed, such that they are effectively puppets of anti-theistic state religion.

Sweden etc., are what I would call secular.  They don't take any stance for or against religion.  They simply don't interfere and the state does not purport to be a substitute for religion.  That people are religious is understood and accepted implicitly. 

The US is also secular in that the government is not controlled by any religion.  The only difference as you rightly pointed out is that religion is favored through tax breaks etc.  Americans are very religious.  It fits the character of the nation.  It's logical because most who came here came for freedom to practice their religions.  This is why America came into existence.  We want to protect religion.

Back to this dilemma about what exactly is an atheist.  I'm still trying to figure it out.  Because many atheists are saying to the effect, "we aren't atheist, we're agnostic." Here are my definitions, which many atheists would take issue with:

1.  Atheist: believes there is no God(s)
2.  Agnostic: neither believes there is God(s) nor believes there is not.  No position stated.
3. Theist: believes God(s) exist

Would you slice it up differently?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Generally, a well thought out statement.  I'd like to make two points in the way of clarification (or to put my slant on it):
1.  I agree with your atheist, agnostic, theist assessment.  Except I'd not say an atheist 'believes' these is no god.  I don't 'believe' in anything, for that means that is what I chose to do.  I simply do not see any evidence that would demonstrate to me that any god exists.  For example--I don't 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow.  I know that it will, so, yeah, I think that it will for all the evidence supports that thought.  Belief doesn't figure in.  It can be a fine-line distinction, but one that is important to me.  In my eyes, when one says an atheist 'believes' there is no god, the assumption is that there is a god and atheists simply chose not to acknowledge that fact.  I suggest there is no fact to acknowledge in the existence of any god.  I realize that I take as proof there is not any evidence as a form of proof--not all atheists agree with me in that.

2.  You suggest---"It's logical because most who came here came for freedom to practice their religions."  In high school that is what I learned as well.  I no longer think that.  The Puritans did come to North America to be able to practice their religion as they saw fit; but they were not for freedom of religion in any way.  You were either a Puritan who followed all the rules or you were punished or banished.  I'd say now that the reason most came to North America was for economic reasons.  Half of the Mayflower were people just like that--they wanted to become part of a successful colony or city that would turn a profit; they were not Puritan.  Economic reasons drove the populating of the Americas, not religion, although it did have an important role to play. 

and 3.  I like the way Mr. Obvious put it--I am atheistic and anti-theistic.  But only to a point.  I do not think I have the right to make religions or the religious to go away; but I do have the right to practice what I think without them interfering.  The best way to do that would be through a constitution in which all people's rights are established and respected.  I don't see that as being practiced in this country.  I see christians insisting I be a christian or else.  We cannot hold public office still in nine states in this country.  In many countries of the world atheists can be killed on sight.   

Anyway, good post.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

#500
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 09:25:46 AM
"There is evidence for God everywhere.  Modern science is handicapped by the underlying assumptions of material causality and human supremacism."

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Scientism works very well, until it doesn't.  But if we got really into post-colonial identity politics, then the values of the West, including material causality and human supremacism ... are just as colonial as Rudyard Kipling's "White Man's Burden".  The Enlightenment of which they speak, is a W European, not even E European phenomena.  Very parochial.

“EVERY SINGLE EMPIRE IN ITS OFFICIAL DISCOURSE HAS SAID THAT IT IS NOT LIKE ALL THE OTHERS, THAT ITS CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SPECIAL, THAT IT HAS A MISSION TO ENLIGHTEN, CIVILIZE, BRING ORDER AND DEMOCRACY, AND THAT IT USES FORCE ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. AND, SADDER STILL, THERE ALWAYS IS A CHORUS OF WILLING INTELLECTUALS TO SAY CALMING WORDS ABOUT BENIGN OR ALTRUISTIC EMPIRES, AS IF ONE SHOULDN'T TRUST THE EVIDENCE OF ONE'S EYES WATCHING THE DESTRUCTION AND THE MISERY AND DEATH."  - EDWARD SAID

Freedom of religion and from religion, only came about after the American Revolution, and was pushed primarily by Thomas Jefferson.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 08:47:26 AM
Here are my definitions, which many atheists would take issue with:

1.  Atheist: believes there is no God(s)
2.  Agnostic: neither believes there is God(s) nor believes there is not.  No position stated.
3. Theist: believes God(s) exist

Would you slice it up differently?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Yes of course I would, yours are completely wrong. Or at least, two out of three. To an extent, that leads into your seeming inability to understand that fully secularized countries are atheist, and other countries under communist regime that criminalize theism are antitheistic ON TOP of being atheist. There is an interesting discussion to be had about whether or not countries like China, North Korea or the old ussr are indeed fully antitheistic as they substitute religion with a cult worship of a great leader elevated to a godlike status of their own, but that aside: here is how you should define those three:

1. Atheists do not believe there to be one or multiple gods. (notice the difference with what you put forth)
3. Theists believe there is a god or a multitude thereof. (you got that one right)

Agnosticism and gnosticism are two answers to a different question, however. Whether one can know something with absolute certainty or not.
So:
2.a. Agnostic atheists do not believe in one or multiple gods, but do not claim to be 100% certain of this position.
In essencz most atheists are of the agnostic variety. You'll find most here to be such. Like, 99.99% certain, but never claiming they can prove this to be absolutely true.
2.b. Gnostic theists do not believe there to be a god and claim to be 100% certain and validated in their position.

You can make the same distinction for agnostic theists and gnostic theists.
But one can not both believe there to be a god and to not believe there  to be a god. No more than one can do neither. This isn't 1984.
You believe or you do not believe, (a) gnosticism deals in knowledge (and lack there of), not belief.

"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 09:25:46 AM
"There is evidence for God everywhere."

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

That evidence is a fictional account that exists in your head. IOW, it's worthless.

Baruch

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 10:29:12 AM
That evidence is a fictional account that exists in your head. IOW, it's worthless.
\\

Physics is a model in a persons head (useful too).  Pythagoras/Plato was wrong.  There is no World Of Forms.  You could argue that other ideas in other people's heads, is bad.  But isn't that just prejudice?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

josephpalazzo

Some people don't know the difference between ideas and evidence. Too bad.

Baruch

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 10:33:51 AM
Some people don't know the difference between ideas and evidence. Too bad.

Evidence is a word, that is a representation of an idea.  No ideas are superior to another, in post-modernism.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

josephpalazzo

If someone would punch you in the face, that would be real, regardless if there was an idea going along with that.

Absolute_Agent


Thanks for that explanation. I would like to dissect your ideas further.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 09:45:10 AM
1.  I agree with your atheist, agnostic, theist assessment.  Except I'd not say an atheist 'believes' these is no god.  I don't 'believe' in anything, for that means that is what I chose to do.  I simply do not see any evidence that would demonstrate to me that any god exists.
Don't you assume there is no God(s)?  That is your position correct? Or do you "know" there is no God(s)?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 09:45:10 AMFor example--I don't 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow.  I know that it will, so, yeah, I think that it will for all the evidence supports that thought.  Belief doesn't figure in.
Do you actually know this?  Let's imagine for a second that tonight the sun enters a wormhole that hadn't been detected in our current sector of our Galaxy.  The Earth is left spinning alone and starts drifting away into deep space.  You wake up to no sun.  Yet you "knew" it would rise the previous night.  Wasn't that "knowledge" an assumption based on past experience, or the experiences of others?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 09:45:10 AMIt can be a fine-line distinction, but one that is important to me.  In my eyes, when one says an atheist 'believes' there is no god, the assumption is that there is a god and atheists simply chose not to acknowledge that fact.  I suggest there is no fact to acknowledge in the existence of any god.  I realize that I take as proof there is not any evidence as a form of proof--not all atheists agree with me in that.
So the fact you have no evidence of something is proof that it doesn't exist.  Is that what you mean?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 09:45:10 AMThe Puritans did come to North America to be able to practice their religion as they saw fit; but they were not for freedom of religion in any way.  You were either a Puritan who followed all the rules or you were punished or banished.
Yes, initially they came for freedom to practice THEIR religion, not for everyone to have freedom.  Yet by the time the Constitution was drafted it was becoming obvious this mentality was no longer tenable.  The original states were theocracies which eventually morphed into secular states under the influence of the federal government.  No doubt many Christians want things to go back to the "good old days" when their religion or denomination was in charge.[emoji849]
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 09:45:10 AMand 3.  I like the way Mr. Obvious put it--I am atheistic and anti-theistic.  But only to a point.  I do not think I have the right to make religions or the religious to go away; but I do have the right to practice what I think without them interfering.  The best way to do that would be through a constitution in which all people's rights are established and respected.
This is what I consider a secular ideology.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 09:45:10 AM
I don't see that as being practiced in this country.  I see christians insisting I be a christian or else.
Agreed.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 09:45:10 AMWe cannot hold public office still in nine states in this country.
Didn't know that.  If atheists are prohibited by state law from holding public office this violates the Constitution and should be challenged.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 09:45:10 AMIn many countries of the world atheists can be killed on sight.
Islam guarantees freedom of religion.   This has no doubt been misunderstood by many including some Muslims.  However if you look at UAE there is an example of an Islamic nation that protects freedom of religion.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Absolute_Agent

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 10:29:12 AM
That evidence is a fictional account that exists in your head. IOW, it's worthless.
You have the same evidence available to you as I do.  The only difference is in how much of it you use, and how you interpret it.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Baruch

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 10:40:59 AM
If someone would punch you in the face, that would be real, regardless if there was an idea going along with that.

I feel triggered ... will be contacting my local college LBGT support group ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.