The Morman hypothetical

[moevillini]

... I'll bet your perspective will change once you have kids.

Way to twist the scenario.

It's the PARENT'S reaction to the kid's choices that makes the parent selfish (or not), not the kid's choices themselves. But you knew that.

Quite possible. I don't think it would change me being upset and hurt, though.
It's not twisting, it's adding real situations. The kid makes the choice knowing full well what the reaction would be.

At what point in the child's life does he/she get to choose what is best for him/her? At what point in time do you simply accept that without any thought of what the effect on your life is? Why does it have to be God or you? Why can't it be both?...

Amen...not to get all religious here... ;-)

Unless you're talking about a scenario where your children have joined some sort of cult, or you're afraid they're being brainwashed to do material harm to themselves or others, I would hope you'd feel some sort of pride that you raised children who were capable of thinking for themselves and figuring out answers that work best for them. As an adult, you've reached certain "conclusions" or found your "answers" based upon your experiences in life - your children have not shared the identical experiences as you, so you shouldn't really expect them to reach the same conclusions you did.

 

[Hopper]

There are a lot of different kinds of agnostics. It is, by definition, the gray area between theism and atheism.

Your response does not address the question asked, eh, Game? If atheism is NOT in the grey area, what is it about atheism that makes it black (or white, if you prefer), instead of grey?

 

[One Brow]

So you say, eh, Eric? But that don't stop large "atheist societies" from croppin up all over the country with regular meetins and far-flung agendas to promote.

No doubt. Groups of like-minded people always like to congregate.

I disagree. That might be agnosticism.

Except it isn't. There are version of agnosticism that declare the issue to be undecided, and those that declare it to be undecidable. I have decided that I don't believe in any gods.

Sayin "I don't believe there is a God," either is, or it aint, just another way of sayin "I believe there is no God." When there's a difference, that's where the distinction between an agnostic and an atheist comes in.

Your labels are out-of-date and insufficiently granular. As a skeptic, I refuse to state flatly that my belief is verifiable, because I have no proof for the lack of any gods at all. So, I don't say there are no gods. Nonetheless, I have decided that I don't believe in any gods.

 

[One Brow]

There's no rule that says that all adherents to any religion have to have identical beliefs - I know plenty of folks who disagree with much of Catholicism, yet still consider themselves Catholic for instance.

LOL, how's this for a new religious standard - if 3/4ths of the people agree on 3/4ths of the beliefs, it's a religion. Sound good?

There are a dozen or so (IIRC) beliefs that every Catholic is required to hold to, the rest not required to be a Catholic.

 

[Hopper]

As a skeptic, I refuse to state flatly that my belief is verifiable, because I have no proof for the lack of any gods at all. So, I don't say there are no gods. Nonetheless, I have decided that I don't believe in any gods.

Fine, Eric. Then call yourself a "skeptic" or an "agnostic." Why try to insist that you are an "atheist" when you're not? Is there sumthin particularly appealin to you about bein in the "atheist" camp?

 

[One Brow]

This question goes to my agnostic brothers and sisters here on the board...

One day, your child comes to you and says that he or she is religeous. What do you do? Or, rather, how do you handle the situation?

Thanks!

I drive them to church on Sundays. I drive kids to YuGiOh games, parks, etc., as well.

 

[One Brow]

There's actually a couple of questions here that have been addressed.

1. Can any belief be considered "religious" if the subject matter of that belief does not relate to a diety? Your responses here suggest that you adhere to this as the sole criterion for deciding whether a set of beliefs could be considered "religious." With respect to atheism, I simply noted that even if this were the sole meaning of "religion," atheism would qualify, because it pertains to a theistic belief (Eric went on to argue, wrongly, I think, that the word "atheism" entails no belief).

I think a religion needs to encompass some sort of belief in the supernatural. Certain strains of Buddism are atheistic, yet still religious. On the other hand, we don't usually think of Communism as a religion, even though it is no more real than unicorns.

 

[moevillini]

There are a dozen or so (IIRC) beliefs that every Catholic is required to hold to, the rest not required to be a Catholic.

well, people can choose to call themselves something for whatever reasons they choose. I do believe that ;-)

 

[One Brow]

Fine, Eric. Then call yourself a "skeptic" or an "agnostic." Why try to insist that you are an "atheist" when you're not? Is there sumthin particularly appealin to you about bein in the "atheist" camp?

I am a skeptic. I am also an atheist, as most skeptics are. Why should I not call myself both when I am both?

I am not an agnostic. I am not undecided. I am not declaring the matter undeciable. I don't think there is good evidence either way.

There is nothing particularly appealing about being an atheist, except the accuracy of the description.

Also, just to help with terminology: a strong atheist actively declares gods do not exist, a weak atheist says that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. I agree that the position of a strong atheist is just as arbitrary (which I prefer over "irrational" for a few reasons) as that of any religious point of view. The position of a weak atheist is not an arbitrary one.

 

[Hopper]

I take it you've read most of this thread now, eh, Eric? I've already made a few posts addressed directly to the issue of definitions. You too may want to proselytize Webster's and other dictionary editors and attempt to illuminate them with your superior linguistic knowledge. I'll leave that to you, if you think it's a critical semantic issue. I'm more concerned with substance. Along those lines, I must say that I find this collection of statements to be incoherent:

I

I am not an agnostic. I am not undecided. I am not declaring the matter undeciable. I don't think there is good evidence either way...a weak atheist says that they lack belief in the existence of any gods.

What you insist on calling a "weak atheist" is simply what, for centuries now, has been called an agnostic--which you deny that you are.

But, that aside, you're saying that the issue is NOT undecidable and that you are not undecided, all while sayin there is no good evidence, either way. Well, which is it?

 

[Deleted member 95]

Viny, seriously excellent thread. Bro. I give it 4 1/2 goblins* out of 5.

 

[Hopper]

"Nineteen Eighty-Four is a novel by George Orwell about the totalitarian regime of the Party. The novel depicts an oligarchical collectivist society where life in the Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance, and incessant public mind control....the terms and concepts of Big Brother, doublethink, thoughtcrime, Newspeak, Memory hole, et cetera, became contemporary vernacular, including the adjective Orwellian...

...the adjective Orwellian connotes totalitarian thought and action in controlling and subjugating people. Newspeak language says the opposite of what it means by misnomer; hence the Ministry of Peace (Minipax) deals with war, and the Ministry of Love (Miniluv) deals with torture.

The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four whose job it is to uncover and punish thoughtcrime. The Thought Police of Orwell and their pursuit of thoughtcrime were based on the methods used by the totalitarian states and competing ideologies of the 20th century...The term "Thought Police," by extension, has come to refer to real or perceived enforcement of ideological correctness in any modern or historical contexts.

Doublethink is an integral concept of George Orwell's novel and the word doublethink is part of Newspeak. According to the novel, doublethink is:

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Orwell had a ton of both foresight and insight, and his novels have generally been acknowledged as belonging in the "great" category. One drawback to having elucidated his insight is that he has provided a virtual primer for wannabe totaltarians, PC enforcers, and propgandists to follow in terms of revisionism, re-definition, thought control, etc. It has obviously been carefully studied by some, for just such purposes.

 

[Hopper]

From what I've seen, I think there are some people who, in terms of faith, emotional commitment, and devout conviction believe there is no God, but do not want to say so. For some, the reason they don't want to say so is because they realize that their commitment is one of faith, not reason, and they want to maintain an appearance of objectivity, rationality, and dispassionate analysis, all while avoiding any suggestion that they believe things "on faith."

For some, not skilled at the art of doublethink, to use Orwell's term, this creates some unpleasant cognitive dissonance. But they work at it, and, with the help of newspeak and revisionism, end up with what appears to them to be an ironclad reconciliation of their conflicting attitudes. Then the next step begins--convincing others that they are right.

 

[Hopper]

Speakin just for myself, of course, I prefer the Dawkins type of non-evasive, straight-up, no-nonsense atheism. Dawkins doesn't make any pretenses about his faith, all while maintaining a self-assured conviction that he is 100% rational in reaching his positions. Ask him if he believes there is no God, and his response might well be along these lines:

"Damn right I believe it, because it's indisputably true. You just sit down there, buddy-boy, and listen to me. If you have even an ounce of rationality, sanity, and open-mindedness I will conclusively prove to you that there is no God. All the facts, empirical evidence, logic, and every other tool used to acquire knowledge make it simply indubitable: There is no God!"

 

[One Brow]

I take it you've read most of this thread now, eh, Eric? I've already made a few posts addressed directly to the issue of definitions. You too may want to proselytize Webster's and other dictionary editors and attempt to illuminate them with your superior linguistic knowledge.

The American Heritage Dictionary

a·the·ist (th-st) KEY

NOUN: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

https://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/atheist

Do you really want to duke it out with dueling dictionaries? Then start here: find one that says a person who lacks any belief in any sort of god is an agnostic.

I'll leave that to you, if you think it's a critical semantic issue. I'm more concerned with substance. Along those lines, I must say that I find this collection of statements to be incoherent:

Thanks for clarifying the limits of your coherence. Absent any effort to produce an incoherence, all you are doing is demonstrating your own limitation.

What you insist on calling a "weak atheist" is simply what, for centuries now, has been called an agnostic--which you deny that you are.

Then produce a definition that says so.

But, that aside, you're saying that the issue is NOT undecidable and that you are not undecided, all while sayin there is no good evidence, either way. Well, which is it?

All of the above.

To say the issue is undecidable would be tantamount to saying the supernatural could never impact the natural. I don't see why that limitation must be in place.

I am not undecided. That should be clear.

Positive disproof of any gods would require some way to reliably explore and examine non-natural existence. I am unaware of any such means, and have no reason to say that if something supernatural did exist, we could explore it. So, there is no evidence of disproof, merely an absence of evidence.

 

[Hopper]

I am not undecided. That should be clear.

Well, I'm sorry, it isn't clear to me what you mean here. Do you believe (notice that I didn't ask "can you prove") that there is no God (whatever that is)?

 

[Loki]

Well, I'm sorry, it isn't clear to me what you mean here. Do you believe (notice that I didn't ask "can you prove") that there is no God (whatever that is)?

One Brow is firmly in the Atheist camp. He does not believe there is a God.

 

[Hopper]

With respect to dictionary definitions, the first one I checked was here: https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

It says: "a·the·ist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

This appears to be the "definition" you want to rely on. However this same dictionary goes on to add:

"Can be confused:   agnostic, atheist, deist, theist (see synonym note at this entry ). "

Well, we wouldn't wanna go gittin confused, now would we? So let's take us a little look-see at the "synonym note," waddaya say?:

"—Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine."

Which, of course, is all I've been sayin.

 

[Hopper]

One Brow is firmly in the Atheist camp. He does not believe there is a God.

Have you been schooled by the "talking points" committee, too, Loki?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

.

Amen...not to get all religious here... ;-)

Unless you're talking about a scenario where your children have joined some sort of cult, or you're afraid they're being brainwashed to do material harm to themselves or others, I would hope you'd feel some sort of pride that you raised children who were capable of thinking for themselves and figuring out answers that work best for them. As an adult, you've reached certain "conclusions" or found your "answers" based upon your experiences in life - your children have not shared the identical experiences as you, so you shouldn't really expect them to reach the same conclusions you did.

And I have no problem with children believing in fantastical things. It's when those fantastical things tell you to cut off your family is when I have a problem.