inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 16, 2010 14:05:49 GMT -8
A different part of my dissertation got Edgar Allan Poe.
Sossity, I fear this doesn't provide the scientific examination of my writing you suggested it would.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 16, 2010 13:59:50 GMT -8
From a few paragraphs of my dissertation it says I write like David Foster Wallace, who I had not heard of until just now. Apparently he's pretty good though. Maybe I'll check him out.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 16, 2010 13:32:05 GMT -8
Being an Atheist had nothing to do with your attitude towards others beliefs. A belief is anything you hold to be true or to be the case. You hold the proposition "There is no God" to be true. You believe that there is no God. "The sky is blue" is also a belief many people hold. Whether that belief involves faith is another matter, but I suppose that is what we're really talking about. Why I believe Atheism requires a degree of faith: Put very simply, it's an assertion that attempts to describe things beyond our physical universe and therefore things we have no knowledge about. As a person I think everyone should just let everyone else live in peace. I guess my issue is more with people than religion. I am often offended by the fact that the people pushing a peace and respect are the most insistent in not respecting others and leaving them to live in peace. That goes for Atheists that attack religion as well. Religion is designed to be self sustaining and viral in every aspect. Religions that don't embody a certain set of rules in maintaining their power and spread fail. History has shown this time and again. There is a reason modern day religions share so many paragons even at 1500+ years old. Even with completely different beliefs and morals they utilize the same systems and similar rules for continued existence. Atheism does not contain faith. The only definition of faith that does not involve God or religion is the following "allegiance to duty or a person" which essentially means trust. As in I trust my fiance to not cheat on me, or I have faith that she won't. Faith, like belief, is a label that is applied to Atheism because it is easier for people to comprehend atheism if they view it like they view their own beliefs. It far easier for someone to understand that "I believe in A, you believe in B, and Ryan, he believes in C." When in reality I don't believe in C, I don't have faith in C. You are trying to put a label on something because you feel that if I don't have a letter, there is a void where there should be one. Religions A, B, D, E, and F aren't the same category even philosophically as atheism. Religion does not fill a void somewhere within you. Not having it doesn't mean you are empty. It also does not mean you have something there. Here's an even better way. Person one has a banana, person 2 has an apple, Ryan is watching TV. What Ryan is doing has nothing to do with person 1 and 2. But person 1 and 2 want to compare how nutritious watching TV is, and how much Ryan will enjoy eating TV. It's not even the same playing field. Words are applied to things people don't understand to help them better comprehend them. << True in many more circumstances then just this conversation. Also, the sky is blue? EDIT : This is perhaps the most intelligent and calm debate I have ever seen in GT. It's like watching people play Jenga. I just keep waiting for someone to come along and ruin it. I do agree with much of your first point but it doesn't really apply to defining someone as an atheist or not. I don't know how you're defining faith but, as is the case with belief, it has a broader definition than that involving religion. Trust in another person or duty are other types of faith but there's also trust in an idea or a proposition. To say all types of faith about ideas are instances of religious faith would be to take for granted the definition of what a religion is and wouldn't exclude Atheism. I'd like to characterise faith as believing in something that isn't proved beyond doubt. I strongly believe that Atheism doesn't escape doubt. Perhaps this definition is too stringent since, as far as I'm concerned, it would lead to the belief that if one believes there are things other than ones mind one is putting faith in something. The argument about whether atheism involves faith and whether atheism is a belief are two separate things. When I say Atheism is a belief I'm not saying it, therefore, necessarily involves faith. Atheism is a belief because it involves making a judgement on the truth-value of an idea/proposition. I disagree with you about the way beliefs work. Denying the truth of something doesn't mean that you simply don't have that belief. It means you have the belief of not believing that belief. If you don't believe A it means to believe - A or 'not A'. I guess what I'd ask what you consider Atheism to be, because you seem to have only said that Atheism isn't a belief without saying what you think it is, besides the murky idea of a 'philosophical position'. I mean this is where some sceptical philosophies fall down, because they seem to assert that one should believe in nothing, which in itself is considered a belief. Denying they religious beliefs and atheism are related it also wrong it would seem. At the fundamental level they're both making truth-value judgements on the same idea. They both deal with the proposition "There is a God." On one side the religious person is judging that proposition to be true, on the other the atheist is judging it to be false. Opposite answers but identical subject matter. Just as easily as you can claim people are wrong to consider atheism a belief I could claim you are wrong for considering a certain religious philosophy a belief. Besides you wont find metaphysical knowledge through examining the usage of words. What we are really talking about is what is the content of the mind when one subscribes to the atheist doctrine compared to when one subscribes to a theistic doctrine. In both instances there are obviously thoughts involved, and I don't think you can deny that they both involve judgements on the truth or falsity of a proposition, and at the bare roots of both atheism and theism I think that is all they are. I am saying that that is exactly what a belief is, a thought that involves a truth-value judgement. I said we're not involved in an argument over semantics but perhaps we are. I'm defining belief as a thought with a truth-value judgement, you are claiming it is something else. But then all I really want to know is what you would call a thought that involves a truth-value judgement. Edit: I think this debate is so civil because neither of us are defending a religion and are both involved in the search for truth through the application of reason. We're not starting with a belief and then trying to find ways to prove it.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 16, 2010 8:58:12 GMT -8
I don't see how Atheists who 'competes' with religion 'are not really Atheists'. I also still have no idea what you meant when you said Atheism isn't a belief. What exactly is your philosophical position (as Division by Zero would prefer) as an Atheist? I'm saying that if you are really an Atheist then there is no need to "convert" others to what you believe. No need to attack them. You realize that as long as they aren't directly affecting you other people's beliefs don't matter. My philosophical position is that there is no god (higher power, creator, etc.)That is not a belief (unless you define belief as an individual's perception of all reality in the universe around them). Being an Atheist had nothing to do with your attitude towards others beliefs. A belief is anything you hold to be true or to be the case. You hold the proposition "There is no God" to be true. You believe that there is no God. "The sky is blue" is also a belief many people hold. Whether that belief involves faith is another matter, but I suppose that is what we're really talking about. Why I believe Atheism requires a degree of faith: Put very simply, it's an assertion that attempts to describe things beyond our physical universe and therefore things we have no knowledge about.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 16, 2010 8:19:42 GMT -8
I think it's necessary to clarify what I meant when I said Atheism is not a religion. Atheism in not even a belief. It is often called a belief by groups who have beliefs. By doing so they are able to make it a competition or something to be compared. If a religion (pick one) calls atheism a belief then they can claim that an atheist is trying to push their beliefs onto said groups individuals. Atheists who compete with religion are not really atheists. They are believing something and they are fighting for it, often unnecessarily. As an human being, who happens to be an atheist, I respect religions, all of them. Having faith is a wonderful thing if you have it. It so happens that I do not. On that note I do not interfere with any religion or it's practices unless it infringes on my life. I do believe that many people, who coincidentally are religious, need to lighten up. How often do you see an atheist here in GT report users and go crazy based on what is obviously a joke. You don't. If you really believe and have real faith then nothing anyone else can say should have any effect on you. Those who are most offended are those who have doubt. Religions are not the minority, they are the majority, but they defend themselves like they are. It is their nature. They are a protected class with special exemptions. Growing up you are taught to question everything except religion. People can yell and shout all day about political beliefs and at the end of the day realize that their opinion is different then the person they debated. They can even shake hands and walk away. But it's taboo to even discuss religion, even in a calm setting. As soon as the non-religious side says a negative thing it's all over. Why is that? Think about it? Religion has a monopoly. I'd like to point out that this post explains calmly about religion and atheism. I mean no offense. I even point out why you should not be threatened. I only wish to provoke thought. However, I fully expect this post to be reported as 'highly offensive'. The last sentence is not meant to be mocking either. There is no way to explain how to explain something like this, as I explained.I don't see how Atheists who 'competes' with religion 'are not really Atheists'. I also still have no idea what you meant when you said Atheism isn't a belief. What exactly is your philosophical position (as Division by Zero would prefer) as an Atheist?
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 16, 2010 6:38:41 GMT -8
I take your point but I think the desire to reject Atheism being called a belief stems from prejudice and a will on the part of the Atheist to make a fundamental distinction which they believe to exist between the nature of their beliefs and the beliefs of a religious person. This distinction doesn't really exist in any philosophically meaningful way. And maybe they don't want their beliefs to be seen to carry the same weaknesses which they portray the beliefs of a religious person's to have. Calling Atheism a belief is more than technically right, it is essentially a belief. Denying it as a belief is far more misleading than asserting it is one. I also think that what was being implied when it was said 'Atheism is not a belief' was that it was a lack of a belief. Besides, only the Atheist would want to deny their position as a belief. Speaking from an Agnostic point of view, it should be considered as much a belief as some Theistic beliefs. But maybe this all falls back to whether Theism is a religion. You have misinterpreted what I've written. The reason why I said it would be misleading to call Atheism a belief had to do with the fact that the word 'belief' is most commonly associated with theistic belief systems. Not that I denied that Atheism qualified as a belief, when looking at the secular meaning of the definition. Many Theists have used the religious specific definition of 'belief' to compare Theism with Atheism. There are Theists, who I've debated with personally, that will even go so far to call Atheism a religion based on their comparative interpretation, then moments later contradict themselves by referring to Atheists and Agnostics as 'Nonbelievers'. I've heard Theists define Atheists and Agnostics as "people with no beliefs", as if the only way to define 'belief' is someone who is a Theist, a 'believer', and that anything contrary to that doesn't qualify the word usage. This is why I assert it is less confusing to describe Atheism and Agnosticism as philosophical positions. Furthermore, you are correct in asserting that the purported distinction between Atheism and Theism is fundamental. An Atheist feels that there is incontrovertible proof that there are no Deities of any sort. Therefore, an Atheist is of the opinion that their position is rigorous fact. Of course, not all Atheists mirror that exact sentiment, and may have varying shades of confidence of their opinion on the nonexistence of Deities. As an Agnostic, it is assumed that you dispute this, so I will not further the argument in that direction. I don't think I did misinterpret what you meant. I just also gave other reasons I believed Atheists to have for wanting to reject the label of a belief. I agree that it may confusing to some to call Atheism a belief whilst also using the word belief with connotations of faith. I didn't mean to suggest that I thought those were the reasons you were arguing Atheism shouldn't be referred to as a belief. I also wanted to make the point that Atheism's status as a belief is significant and important and shouldn't be claimed not to be a belief. It is perfectly acceptable to term it a philosophical position if the only reason is to avoid confusion. To deny it as a belief would be wrong. So yes, my point would be that not making it clear that Atheism is a belief is too important a point to ignore.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
G-20
Jul 15, 2010 1:48:46 GMT -8
Post by Zephyr on Jul 15, 2010 1:48:46 GMT -8
The G20 is a meeting of the worlds economic dictators to work out how to grow their own wealth and the wealth of their hugely rich financial backers whilst making cursory commitments to help those who really need it. The protesters were protesting against these plutocrats and trying to raise awareness of their self-interested motives. Fristly, they're not economic dictators. Something like the economy cannot be dictated, at least not successfully. Secondly, who are these financial backers exactly? You're being far too cynical. And thirdly, while they might be acting in self-interest, you might have also pointed out that the current economic system we live in only allows one to gain through self interest by benefiting others. Those who protest against it would act in self interest to benefit themselves only. I was joking.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
G-20
Jul 15, 2010 1:17:49 GMT -8
Post by Zephyr on Jul 15, 2010 1:17:49 GMT -8
The G20 is a meeting of the worlds economic dictators to work out how to grow their own wealth and the wealth of their hugely rich financial backers whilst making cursory commitments to help those who really need it.
The protesters were protesting against these plutocrats and trying to raise awareness of their self-interested motives.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 15, 2010 1:06:48 GMT -8
The word 'belief' has many religious connotations. One of the definitions is strictly religious due to its' usage in Theology. Describing Atheism in this context would be inaccurate. Technically speaking, it's still accurate to describe Atheism as a belief, albeit misleading. In my opinion, it's less confusing when you describe Atheism as a philosophical position. I take your point but I think the desire to reject Atheism being called a belief stems from prejudice and a will on the part of the Atheist to make a fundamental distinction which they believe to exist between the nature of their beliefs and the beliefs of a religious person. This distinction doesn't really exist in any philosophically meaningful way. And maybe they don't want their beliefs to be seen to carry the same weaknesses which they portray the beliefs of a religious person's to have. Calling Atheism a belief is more than technically right, it is essentially a belief. Denying it as a belief is far more misleading than asserting it is one. I also think that what was being implied when it was said 'Atheism is not a belief' was that it was a lack of a belief. Besides, only the Atheist would want to deny their position as a belief. Speaking from an Agnostic point of view, it should be considered as much a belief as some Theistic beliefs. But maybe this all falls back to whether Theism is a religion.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 14, 2010 13:29:31 GMT -8
Listen to the Beatles. They're probably better than any of the bands posted so far.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 14, 2010 13:10:34 GMT -8
While this is true, I think these days calling it a religion is perfectly acceptable. We know its not, but its just easier to say it is. Its like saying black is a color, we know its the absence of all colors but really... are we going to get that anal about if we classify it a color or not? Definition of Religion Main Entry: re·li·gion Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observanceAtheism is not a religion. Atheism in not even a belief. Atheism is a belief.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 14, 2010 5:42:26 GMT -8
The extent of my 'LARP' knowledges comes from Role Models.
It looked absolutely incredible in that but I can imagine it might not work so smoothly in real life. I especially didn't understand where the wizard fitted in...
Can't say it's my kind of thing but... it's definitely something.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 14, 2010 4:04:56 GMT -8
You could also say Theism is too general to qualify as a religion. You might especially be compelled to say this if you wish to deny atheism as a religion. Not necessarily. Theism definitely fits the definition of a religion. Theism is defined clearly enough to be interpreted as a religious system. There are variations, of course, seen throughout the various practices of theistic people. These are just divisions and sub-divisions of the same concept. Theism is a belief in (at least one) god. That seems much too general to be considered a religion. There are no restrictions on what can be considered a God. You don't necessarily have to worship a god even if you believe in one. Closely related to both these points is the fact that something could be regarded as a God and not require faith. For Theism to be considered a religion, at the very least you'd have to define what counts as a god.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 14, 2010 1:25:01 GMT -8
I'd sacrifice Sweden, Finland and Norway if you've only got a month. From what I've been told that leaves you pretty pressed for time and those countries are pretty out of the way.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Jul 14, 2010 1:21:53 GMT -8
Also, I would argue that anything other than Theism (and the other Theistic sub-categories) doesn't qualify as a religion. You could also say Theism is too general to qualify as a religion. You might especially be compelled to say this if you wish to deny atheism as a religion.
|
|