|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 19, 2021 7:36:40 GMT
Then...I guess we agree? I am not sure. You put things in such a way that I can't make sense of what you are actually saying sometimes. Might be my fault. A belief is an abstract thing, so no, it isn't something you can touch and it doesn't exist as a thing. We use words for a reason though. The words are to describe the state of mind of a person.Yes, and that is why communication of belief really need pertain to something rational and objective as possible where some truth of assessment can be harnessed. I was really only wanting to point out that I disagreed with your notion of agnosticism as an pre-cursor or adjective to the term atheism, especially when pertaining to the topic of the thread of atheists interested in astrology. Astrology is along the lines of a spiritual discipline to understanding the connectivity of the universe. This may not be in search of God as a separate theist belief, but coincides along the lines of holistic understanding which is what I see many atheists rejecting as well. It doesn't seem to fit in with the materialistic notion of the universe being behind all there is. In order to reject a belief, the notion of something has to be entertained first, (as with atheism - God), in order for it to be rejected. God may not be theist, but its also not diminished either. Then you are sort of redefining atheism it seems to me or rather, we just are using atheism in different ways. All I care about is what a person means by something. What is atheism according to you? If someone claims the universe is "God" then I don't care. They are just labeling something that I believe exists to be God. If someone who believes in a "spiritual" connectivity of the universe or whatever, but states clearly that they don't believe that God exists, then they are what they are. Pick a term, but don't tell them they believe in something that they do not. You do not get to tell people what they think and what they don't think. I mean, you can, but people who do that I will simply write off. You can try to explain to them that they do sort of believe in some kind of "God" state I suppose and then they would have to then admit they are a theist to some extent if you are able to trick them. When I say I am atheist, I am talking about a conscious being or beings that created the universe. That is the only thing I define as God. As a skeptic, I don't believe any claim that I am unable to believe/don't see good evidence for or am unfamiliar or don't understand the evidence that would show it is likely true. It is as simple as that. Language is an interesting thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 19, 2021 7:59:42 GMT
Then...I guess we agree? I am not sure. You put things in such a way that I can't make sense of what you are actually saying sometimes. Might be my fault. A belief is an abstract thing, so no, it isn't something you can touch and it doesn't exist as a thing. We use words for a reason though. The words are to describe the state of mind of a person.Yes, and that is why communication of belief really need pertain to something rational and objective as possible where some truth of assessment can be harnessed. I was really only wanting to point out that I disagreed with your notion of agnosticism as an pre-cursor or adjective to the term atheism, especially when pertaining to the topic of the thread of atheists interested in astrology. Astrology is along the lines of a spiritual discipline to understanding the connectivity of the universe. This may not be in search of God as a separate theist belief, but coincides along the lines of holistic understanding which is what I see many atheists rejecting as well. It doesn't seem to fit in with the materialistic notion of the universe being behind all there is. In order to reject a belief, the notion of something has to be entertained first, (as with atheism - God), in order for it to be rejected. God may not be theist, but its also not diminished either. As far as I can tell, people who label themselves as atheists but believe in other "spiritual" things are saying that these things are just part of the way the universe works, but they don't believe that a being created it or is controlling it. I think this might be where the confusion is coming in.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Feb 19, 2021 15:27:20 GMT
Technically, all an atheist is really rejecting is the religious notion of what God is supposed to represent. Anything else is open to belief and understanding. Problem is though, many atheists can appear to be materialists as well from what I gather and it becomes all about body and physical self that drives the universe. Those that are into astrology may ride off the back of atheism but are really agnostic. Nah. People can call themselves whatever they want, but there is no such thing as an agnostic in the definition sense. If you aren't a believer, then you don't believe. You are an atheist by default. You either believe a claim or you don't. There is no in between. Agnosticism is about what you claim to know. It should only be used as an add on to atheism and theism. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe God exists, but I don't know for a fact that he doesn't exist. There are atheists of every kind. A non-materialist atheist is still an atheist, not an agnostic. Even if I go by your use agnostic, that person isn't an agnostic. They are convinced for some reason that astrology is true, but they do not believe God exists. There is no conflict there. There is a conflict with skepticism though. Just because you want to redefine words, that doesn't mean the entire world has to revise the dictionary for your whim. Even thought the "root words" for "Agnostic" may not indicate it, the definition in every dictionary. Webster's and all the others that sold globally, define "Agnostic" as someone who claims not to know the answer. That's what it means. Both "Theist" and "Atheist" have always been defined as having blind faith in claiming to "know" that there is either godlike beings or that there aren't godlike beings. The Agnostic is anyone who questions reality. The Agnostic is the one who hasn't blind faith. Both others, by definition, claim to have blind faith. I would estimate at least 4 out of every 5 people, 80% are actually Agnostic. Even if I'm wrong about that estimate, the fact is that your claim has absolutely no logic behind it at all. There is no "agnostic atheist". I've seen you and other control freaks try to rewrite the definition on this website, just to be control freaks and try to confuse the rest of the world, and there is no natural reason for that. None. So, in fact, your irrational desire to be a control freak with absolutely no natural motivation for that which you want to control, is absolute proof that there are supernatural forces. However, that doesn't mean there are gods, so again, you just prove that the natural tendency is to be Agnostic. You can lean towards atheism or theism, but in order to claim to be either, you have to have blind faith, and not many people want to do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Feb 19, 2021 15:47:24 GMT
That’s some weird stuff. I know a ton of atheists and I think maybe two who buy into that stuff?
To be fair: they look slightly embarrassed and apologize a lot when they talk about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 19, 2021 22:50:55 GMT
Nah. People can call themselves whatever they want, but there is no such thing as an agnostic in the definition sense. If you aren't a believer, then you don't believe. You are an atheist by default. You either believe a claim or you don't. There is no in between. Agnosticism is about what you claim to know. It should only be used as an add on to atheism and theism. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe God exists, but I don't know for a fact that he doesn't exist. There are atheists of every kind. A non-materialist atheist is still an atheist, not an agnostic. Even if I go by your use agnostic, that person isn't an agnostic. They are convinced for some reason that astrology is true, but they do not believe God exists. There is no conflict there. There is a conflict with skepticism though. Just because you want to redefine words, that doesn't mean the entire world has to revise the dictionary for your whim. Even thought the "root words" for "Agnostic" may not indicate it, the definition in every dictionary. Webster's and all the others that sold globally, define "Agnostic" as someone who claims not to know the answer. That's what it means. Both "Theist" and "Atheist" have always been defined as having blind faith in claiming to "know" that there is either godlike beings or that there aren't godlike beings. The Agnostic is anyone who questions reality. The Agnostic is the one who hasn't blind faith. Both others, by definition, claim to have blind faith. I would estimate at least 4 out of every 5 people, 80% are actually Agnostic. Even if I'm wrong about that estimate, the fact is that your claim has absolutely no logic behind it at all. There is no "agnostic atheist". I've seen you and other control freaks try to rewrite the definition on this website, just to be control freaks and try to confuse the rest of the world, and there is no natural reason for that. None. So, in fact, your irrational desire to be a control freak with absolutely no natural motivation for that which you want to control, is absolute proof that there are supernatural forces. However, that doesn't mean there are gods, so again, you just prove that the natural tendency is to be Agnostic. You can lean towards atheism or theism, but in order to claim to be either, you have to have blind faith, and not many people want to do that. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
That is a cop out. Agnosticism I see as claiming you can't know anything truly about whether some god exists, but they can still examine the claims of each God that has been presented and his character and then either believe or not believe the claim of a specific God. Is there is some kind of god that exists? I can't know, but my atheism is a rejection of the claims of specific gods.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 20, 2021 0:20:27 GMT
Yes, and that is why communication of belief really need pertain to something rational and objective as possible where some truth of assessment can be harnessed. I was really only wanting to point out that I disagreed with your notion of agnosticism as an pre-cursor or adjective to the term atheism, especially when pertaining to the topic of the thread of atheists interested in astrology. Astrology is along the lines of a spiritual discipline to understanding the connectivity of the universe. This may not be in search of God as a separate theist belief, but coincides along the lines of holistic understanding which is what I see many atheists rejecting as well. It doesn't seem to fit in with the materialistic notion of the universe being behind all there is. In order to reject a belief, the notion of something has to be entertained first, (as with atheism - God), in order for it to be rejected. God may not be theist, but its also not diminished either. As far as I can tell, people who label themselves as atheists but believe in other "spiritual" things are saying that these things are just part of the way the universe works, but they don't believe that a being created it or is controlling it. I think this might be where the confusion is coming in. No confusion from my part because I agree with you. Atheism is away from theist God creation only. Yet belief in a religious creator God, or non-belief in a religious creator God still comes down to God. There is no way to escape God from either side of the spectrum of belief, because God is the instigator of the belief first and foremost. It is then dependent on how one perceives God as an extreme notion leaning, or a whole and complete notion in the sense that it is all God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 20, 2021 0:28:31 GMT
Yes, and that is why communication of belief really need pertain to something rational and objective as possible where some truth of assessment can be harnessed. I was really only wanting to point out that I disagreed with your notion of agnosticism as an pre-cursor or adjective to the term atheism, especially when pertaining to the topic of the thread of atheists interested in astrology. Astrology is along the lines of a spiritual discipline to understanding the connectivity of the universe. This may not be in search of God as a separate theist belief, but coincides along the lines of holistic understanding which is what I see many atheists rejecting as well. It doesn't seem to fit in with the materialistic notion of the universe being behind all there is. In order to reject a belief, the notion of something has to be entertained first, (as with atheism - God), in order for it to be rejected. God may not be theist, but its also not diminished either. Then you are sort of redefining atheism it seems to me or rather, we just are using atheism in different ways. All I care about is what a person means by something. What is atheism according to you? If someone claims the universe is "God" then I don't care. They are just labeling something that I believe exists to be God. If someone who believes in a "spiritual" connectivity of the universe or whatever, but states clearly that they don't believe that God exists, then they are what they are. Pick a term, but don't tell them they believe in something that they do not. You do not get to tell people what they think and what they don't think. I mean, you can, but people who do that I will simply write off. You can try to explain to them that they do sort of believe in some kind of "God" state I suppose and then they would have to then admit they are a theist to some extent if you are able to trick them. When I say I am atheist, I am talking about a conscious being or beings that created the universe. That is the only thing I define as God.
As a skeptic, I don't believe any claim that I am unable to believe/don't see good evidence for or am unfamiliar or don't understand the evidence that would show it is likely true. It is as simple as that. Language is an interesting thing. Your thinking regarding God appears fragmented as though you are placing a supreme being image of theist God onto atheist belief. How can one define theist God, when they claim rejection of it to label themselves as atheist?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 20, 2021 0:33:20 GMT
As far as I can tell, people who label themselves as atheists but believe in other "spiritual" things are saying that these things are just part of the way the universe works, but they don't believe that a being created it or is controlling it. I think this might be where the confusion is coming in. No confusion from my part because I agree with you. Atheism is away from theist God creation only. Yet belief in a religious creator God, or non-belief in a religious creator God still comes down to God. There is no way to escape God from either side of the spectrum of belief, because God is the instigator of the belief first and foremost. It is then dependent on how one perceives God as an extreme notion leaning, or a whole and complete notion in the sense that it is all God. I don't believe in ANY kind of God and you would have to ask every individual person what they mean when they say they are an atheist. I don't believe that a deist God exists and I don't believe that a theist God exists. Deism is a sub-category of theism in my view. Atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 20, 2021 0:36:32 GMT
Then you are sort of redefining atheism it seems to me or rather, we just are using atheism in different ways. All I care about is what a person means by something. What is atheism according to you? If someone claims the universe is "God" then I don't care. They are just labeling something that I believe exists to be God. If someone who believes in a "spiritual" connectivity of the universe or whatever, but states clearly that they don't believe that God exists, then they are what they are. Pick a term, but don't tell them they believe in something that they do not. You do not get to tell people what they think and what they don't think. I mean, you can, but people who do that I will simply write off. You can try to explain to them that they do sort of believe in some kind of "God" state I suppose and then they would have to then admit they are a theist to some extent if you are able to trick them. When I say I am atheist, I am talking about a conscious being or beings that created the universe. That is the only thing I define as God.
As a skeptic, I don't believe any claim that I am unable to believe/don't see good evidence for or am unfamiliar or don't understand the evidence that would show it is likely true. It is as simple as that. Language is an interesting thing. Your thinking regarding God appears fragmented as though you are placing a supreme being image of theist God onto atheist belief. How can one define theist God, when they claim rejection of it to label themselves as atheist? I don't know what you even mean. I define God (even a deist God) as a thinking agent. If someone else means God in a different way, then I don't care. You will have to tell me what you mean by God in a non-common place God way and then I can say whether I believe it or not. Like I said, if people are just referring to the unknown as God then they can fuck right off. They are just defining their ignorance or the whole of existence as God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 20, 2021 0:42:50 GMT
Your thinking regarding God appears fragmented as though you are placing a supreme being image of theist God onto atheist belief. How can one define theist God, when they claim rejection of it to label themselves as atheist? I don't know what you even mean. I define God (even a deist God) as a thinking agent. If someone else means God in a different way, then I don't care. You will have to tell me what you mean by God in a non-common place God way and then I can say whether I believe it or not. Like I said, if people are just referring to the unknown as God then they can fuck right off. They are just defining their ignorance or the whole of existence as God. How can you define something that's not real, or something you don't believe in? What is there to believe in, your thinking? That is where the confusion is stemming from.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 20, 2021 0:50:41 GMT
I don't know what you even mean. I define God (even a deist God) as a thinking agent. If someone else means God in a different way, then I don't care. You will have to tell me what you mean by God in a non-common place God way and then I can say whether I believe it or not. Like I said, if people are just referring to the unknown as God then they can fuck right off. They are just defining their ignorance or the whole of existence as God. How can you define something that's not real, or something you don't believe in? What is there to believe in, your thinking? That is where the confusion is stemming from. Atheism is a response to the claims that are made by believers and to the common usage of the God as a thinking being who is telling people how to behave and what to do, because that has consequences. Atheism is a thing because it is a push back against a society that wants to control thought and behavior with something they can't even show reasonably that exists and that is insanity imo. Someone needs to tell me what they mean by God and then I will respond as to whether I believe it or not. Every belief that someone has about a God that I have heard, I don't believe in that God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 20, 2021 1:01:06 GMT
How can you define something that's not real, or something you don't believe in? What is there to believe in, your thinking? That is where the confusion is stemming from. Atheism is a response to the claims that are made by believers and to the common usage of the God as a thinking being who is telling people how to behave and what to do, because that has consequences. Atheism is a thing because it is a push back against a society that wants to control thought and behavior with something they can't even show reasonably that exists and that is insanity imo. Someone needs to tell me what they mean by God and then I will respond as to whether I believe it or not. Every belief that someone has about a God that I have heard, I don't believe in that God. I agree, yet since God in a theist sense cannot and never will be proven, I don't even ponder over that. I only use the term God based on theist notion of creator, but place it into the entire and whole shabang that God is all and everything complete. There is NO supreme deity or saviour.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 20, 2021 1:09:33 GMT
Atheism is a response to the claims that are made by believers and to the common usage of the God as a thinking being who is telling people how to behave and what to do, because that has consequences. Atheism is a thing because it is a push back against a society that wants to control thought and behavior with something they can't even show reasonably that exists and that is insanity imo. Someone needs to tell me what they mean by God and then I will respond as to whether I believe it or not. Every belief that someone has about a God that I have heard, I don't believe in that God. I agree, yet since God in a theist sense cannot and never will be proven, I don't even ponder over that. I only use the term God based on theist notion of creator, but place it into the entire and whole shabang that God is all and everything complete. There is NO supreme deity or saviour. Well I don't know if it could or couldn't be proven at some point (I mean if God is real then He could prove himself considering he is capable of virtually anything), but I will say I find it highly unlikely. The issue is that there are a whole bunch of people who believe this God exists and that he wants things and that they believe he is interacting with reality and telling them dangerous harmful things that impact society and cause people to disown family, cause wars and laws etc. then fighting back against that is important.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 20, 2021 1:13:38 GMT
I agree, yet since God in a theist sense cannot and never will be proven, I don't even ponder over that. I only use the term God based on theist notion of creator, but place it into the entire and whole shabang that God is all and everything complete. There is NO supreme deity or saviour. Well I don't know if it could or couldn't be proven at some point (I mean if God is real then He could prove himself considering he is capable of virtually anything), but I will say I find it highly unlikely. The issue is that there are a whole bunch of people who believe this God exists and that he wants things and that they believe he is interacting with reality and telling them dangerous harmful things that impact society and cause people to disown family, cause wars and laws etc. then fighting back against that is important. They are crackpots movie. It won't ever be proven, because God is not an individual deity and is only born out of deluded theist belief that atheism then rejects.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 20, 2021 1:21:53 GMT
Well I don't know if it could or couldn't be proven at some point (I mean if God is real then He could prove himself considering he is capable of virtually anything), but I will say I find it highly unlikely. The issue is that there are a whole bunch of people who believe this God exists and that he wants things and that they believe he is interacting with reality and telling them dangerous harmful things that impact society and cause people to disown family, cause wars and laws etc. then fighting back against that is important. It won't ever be proven, because God is not an individual deity and is only born out of deluded theist belief that atheism then rejects. I agree and there are millions of them, especially in the Middle East and the U.S. I don't know what it is like where you live, but in the U.S. it is a problem and in the Middle East you have to fear for your life.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrPaulsLaugh on Feb 20, 2021 5:18:15 GMT
Yes, and that is why communication of belief really need pertain to something rational and objective as possible where some truth of assessment can be harnessed. I was really only wanting to point out that I disagreed with your notion of agnosticism as an pre-cursor or adjective to the term atheism, especially when pertaining to the topic of the thread of atheists interested in astrology. Astrology is along the lines of a spiritual discipline to understanding the connectivity of the universe. This may not be in search of God as a separate theist belief, but coincides along the lines of holistic understanding which is what I see many atheists rejecting as well. It doesn't seem to fit in with the materialistic notion of the universe being behind all there is. In order to reject a belief, the notion of something has to be entertained first, (as with atheism - God), in order for it to be rejected. God may not be theist, but its also not diminished either. As far as I can tell, people who label themselves as atheists but believe in other "spiritual" things are saying that these things are just part of the way the universe works, but they don't believe that a being created it or is controlling it. I think this might be where the confusion is coming in. A theist is defined as someone "who believes in the existence of a God; especially, one who believes in a God who sustains a personal relation to his creatures." (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=theist&ia=definition) So a-theist is the negation of this term becoming one who does not believe in the existence of a God; especially, one who does not believe in a God who sustains a personal relation to his creatures, rather than a belief in no God. I am definitely no a believer in the God as most the religious folks would on this board do believe in.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 20, 2021 5:31:14 GMT
As far as I can tell, people who label themselves as atheists but believe in other "spiritual" things are saying that these things are just part of the way the universe works, but they don't believe that a being created it or is controlling it. I think this might be where the confusion is coming in. A theist is defined as someone "who believes in the existence of a God; especially, one who believes in a God who sustains a personal relation to his creatures." (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=theist&ia=definition) So a-theist is the negation of this term becoming one who does not believe in the existence of a God; especially, one who does not believe in a God who sustains a personal relation to his creatures, rather than a belief in no God. I am definitely no a believer in the God as most the religious folks would on this board do believe in. I am aware of what the modern definition of atheist is and everything you wrote lines up with my thoughts, but different people use the term atheist in slightly different ways from what I have seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrPaulsLaugh on Feb 20, 2021 5:44:12 GMT
A theist is defined as someone "who believes in the existence of a God; especially, one who believes in a God who sustains a personal relation to his creatures." (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=theist&ia=definition) So a-theist is the negation of this term becoming one who does not believe in the existence of a God; especially, one who does not believe in a God who sustains a personal relation to his creatures, rather than a belief in no God. I am definitely no a believer in the God as most the religious folks would on this board do believe in. and everything you wrote lines up with my thoughts, but different people use the term atheist in slightly different ways from what I have seen. I am sure that you do. When I post stuff like this, I do so for the benefit of anyone who may read this including the person I'm responding to. So, please don't be offended.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 20, 2021 6:02:10 GMT
I am aware of what the modern definition of atheist is and everything you wrote lines up with my thoughts, but different people use the term atheist in slightly different ways from what I have seen. I am sure that you do. When I post stuff like this, I do so for the benefit of anyone who may read this including the person I'm responding to. So, please don't be offended. You are good. I make a distinction between being irritated and being offended and I was just slightly irritated. You cleared it up though. I save the word offensive for stuff that makes me vehemently angry and has a real impact on my life. Religious people who preach offend me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 21, 2021 23:24:33 GMT
It’s weird. I live in the southern Bible Belt. I don’t know a lot of atheists or openly “out” as atheists. But, I know about 5. And all 5 of them are really into astrology. I don’t get it? If you’re an atheist. I get that means you don’t believe in God. But, why do you believe in Astrology? That’s kind of like a religious belief too. Why not go full atheist? Believe in nothing? It’s like a vegetarian saying “well, I don’t eat mammals. But I’ll have fish on Fridays.” Im an atheist and I don’t know why anybody would believe in astrology. Being an atheist for me is about critical thinking, and astrology is no more rational than deities. I don’t think your 5 atheists are typical of most atheists. |
|
