Roots of Human Morality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
122

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Are you a rabid America hating secularist totally engrossed, and enthralled for that matter, in the religion of atheism and an avid evangelist on its behalf, ephrem? [/quote]

If atheism is a religion, then what is not a religion? And is it possible to believe in a god and not have a religion?[/quote]

It is technically not a religion but its followers are indeed religious in their fervor to promote their belief in unbelief. They have a core set of beliefs that are taken on faith. They are in fact religious.

As to the second question maybe you might want to address that one. You tell me.[/quote]

So the problem is, atheists who promote their beliefs don’t have a word to describe themselves other than atheist which creates confusion on it being a religion or not.[/quote]

What?[/quote]

Room A: Full of atheists who want to promote their ideas to the world, any atheist posting in this forum would be here.

Room B: Full of atheists who simply don’t believe in god and don’t push their views on others, they didn’t even know that everyone else in the room are also atheist.

So you are saying “Room A” is a religion and “Room B” is not?[/quote]

That’s no different than any other religion.[/quote]

Okay then following must be true too, Theism is a religion.

123

So that brings the question, is it possible to not have a religion? If so give 1 example

125

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

I post you the merriam-webster definition and you respond with some guy’s opinion? My opinion is that this guy is groping and changing the established definitions to suit his purposes. As his definition hasn’t ended up in the official dictionary, I’m not buying it.[/quote]

Tell me, what do you think merriam-webster definition is? It’s ALSO an opinion. The difference here is I posted a link from American Atheists.

[quote]Oleena wrote:

That’s not the way the rest of the world uses those words, so I don’t see the point of me starting to.

[/quote]

Actually it is. This is your problem, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Do some research on the term “agnostic atheist.” Maybe you have some sort of sticking point calling yourself an atheist and that’s why you’re arguing this so vehemently.

Here is another one from about.com

"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a �¢??third way�¢?? between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge �¢?? it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

Here’s another one from ironchariots.org: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

“Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn’t claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn’t find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist). Other ways in which the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist can be combined are discussed below.”

[/quote]

So how would you define someone who claimed to know for sure that God did not exist?

126

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

I post you the merriam-webster definition and you respond with some guy’s opinion? My opinion is that this guy is groping and changing the established definitions to suit his purposes. As his definition hasn’t ended up in the official dictionary, I’m not buying it.[/quote]

Tell me, what do you think merriam-webster definition is? It’s ALSO an opinion. The difference here is I posted a link from American Atheists.

[quote]Oleena wrote:

That’s not the way the rest of the world uses those words, so I don’t see the point of me starting to.

[/quote]

Actually it is. This is your problem, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Do some research on the term “agnostic atheist.” Maybe you have some sort of sticking point calling yourself an atheist and that’s why you’re arguing this so vehemently.

Here is another one from about.com

"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a �?�¢??third way�?�¢?? between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge �?�¢?? it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

Here’s another one from ironchariots.org: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

“Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn’t claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn’t find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist). Other ways in which the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist can be combined are discussed below.”

[/quote]

So how would you define someone who claimed to know for sure that God did not exist?[/quote]

Gnostic atheist. But almost no one holds this position.

When you say atheist generally people are referring to agnostic atheist.

A similar rule applies to theist. Basically every theist out there is a gnostic theist. Almost no theist holds the agnostic theist position.

127

[quote]Oleena wrote:

So how would you define someone who claimed to know for sure that God did not exist?[/quote]

Presumptuous.

128

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So that brings the question, is it possible to not have a religion? If so give 1 example[/quote]

I’ve answered this before but you’ve surely missed it.

EVERYONE has faith in something. We all live our lives by faith to some degree or another.

You, me, Olee, Tirib, Raj, Eph, Obama, John Doe, Plato, Tom Coughlin, Whitney Houston, Genghis Khan, the plumber down the street.

See Romans 1.[/quote]

Next time someone asks this question start with clarifying it applies to everyone. Atheists sometimes think they are special so if you single them out in a statement they are less likely to believe you.

130

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So that brings the question, is it possible to not have a religion? If so give 1 example[/quote]

I’ve answered this before but you’ve surely missed it.

EVERYONE has faith in something. We all live our lives by faith to some degree or another.

You, me, Olee, Tirib, Raj, Eph, Obama, John Doe, Plato, Tom Coughlin, Whitney Houston, Genghis Khan, the plumber down the street.

See Romans 1.[/quote]

Next time someone asks this question start with clarifying it applies to everyone. Atheists sometimes think they are special so if you single them out in a statement they are less likely to believe you.[/quote]

Faith has a broad meaning though. Everyone requires faith at the rudimentary level. I technically take it on faith that when I sit in the chair I have sat in 99,999 times previously will not collapse on the 100,000 time I sit down.

But it’s really not the same type of faith required to believe in any of claims religions make. Accepting Allah as your god requires a completely different type of faith than sitting in a chair. One is faith based on reasonable expectations, while the other is blind faith.

132

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So that brings the question, is it possible to not have a religion? If so give 1 example[/quote]

I’ve answered this before but you’ve surely missed it.

EVERYONE has faith in something. We all live our lives by faith to some degree or another.

You, me, Olee, Tirib, Raj, Eph, Obama, John Doe, Plato, Tom Coughlin, Whitney Houston, Genghis Khan, the plumber down the street.

See Romans 1.[/quote]

Next time someone asks this question start with clarifying it applies to everyone. Atheists sometimes think they are special so if you single them out in a statement they are less likely to believe you.[/quote]

Faith has a broad meaning though. Everyone requires faith at the rudimentary level. I technically take it on faith that when I sit in the chair I have sat in 99,999 times previously will not collapse on the 100,000 time I sit down.

But it’s really not the same type of faith required to believe in any of claims religions make. Accepting Allah as your god requires a completely different type of faith than sitting in a chair.[/quote]

That may very well be true but then again we aint a-talkin about that kind of faith, are we?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disingenuous[/quote]

Sure, but I am clarifying your dishonest word game.

134

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

I post you the merriam-webster definition and you respond with some guy’s opinion? My opinion is that this guy is groping and changing the established definitions to suit his purposes. As his definition hasn’t ended up in the official dictionary, I’m not buying it.[/quote]

Tell me, what do you think merriam-webster definition is? It’s ALSO an opinion. The difference here is I posted a link from American Atheists.

[quote]Oleena wrote:

That’s not the way the rest of the world uses those words, so I don’t see the point of me starting to.

[/quote]

Actually it is. This is your problem, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Do some research on the term “agnostic atheist.” Maybe you have some sort of sticking point calling yourself an atheist and that’s why you’re arguing this so vehemently.

Here is another one from about.com

"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a �??�?�¢??third way�??�?�¢?? between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge �??�?�¢?? it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

Here’s another one from ironchariots.org: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

“Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn’t claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn’t find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist). Other ways in which the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist can be combined are discussed below.”

[/quote]

So how would you define someone who claimed to know for sure that God did not exist?[/quote]

Gnostic atheist. But almost no one holds this position.

[/quote]

There are a whole bunch of people in Seattle who hold that position and have even derived logical proofs of it. That’s right, logical arguments regarding how it is impossible that God exists, not regarding how it’s impossible to know whether or not God exists.

This is why I’m hesitant to say that your definitions are helpful. These people don’t call their group “Gnostic Atheists”; they just call themselves atheists and those who don’t buy their proofs or believe in God “agnostic”.

135

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

I post you the merriam-webster definition and you respond with some guy’s opinion? My opinion is that this guy is groping and changing the established definitions to suit his purposes. As his definition hasn’t ended up in the official dictionary, I’m not buying it.[/quote]

Tell me, what do you think merriam-webster definition is? It’s ALSO an opinion. The difference here is I posted a link from American Atheists.

[quote]Oleena wrote:

That’s not the way the rest of the world uses those words, so I don’t see the point of me starting to.

[/quote]

Actually it is. This is your problem, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Do some research on the term “agnostic atheist.” Maybe you have some sort of sticking point calling yourself an atheist and that’s why you’re arguing this so vehemently.

Here is another one from about.com

"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a �??�??�??�?�¢??third way�??�??�??�?�¢?? between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge �??�??�??�?�¢?? it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

Here’s another one from ironchariots.org: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

“Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn’t claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn’t find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist). Other ways in which the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist can be combined are discussed below.”

[/quote]

So how would you define someone who claimed to know for sure that God did not exist?[/quote]

Gnostic atheist. But almost no one holds this position.

[/quote]

There are a whole bunch of people in Seattle who hold that position and have even derived logical proofs of it. That’s right, logical arguments regarding how it is impossible that God exists, not regarding how it’s impossible to know whether or not God exists.

This is why I’m hesitant to say that your definitions are helpful. These people don’t call their group “Gnostic Atheists”; they just call themselves atheists and those who don’t buy their proofs or believe in God “agnostic”. [/quote]

Are they claiming with absolute certainty that god doesn’t exist or just reasonably certain?

I’m reasonably certain that in the relative world, things relative to us god doesn’t exist, but I do not claim to be absolutely certain. Those are two very different things.

Gnosticism is based on absolute certainty.

136

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So that brings the question, is it possible to not have a religion? If so give 1 example[/quote]

I’ve answered this before but you’ve surely missed it.

EVERYONE has faith in something. We all live our lives by faith to some degree or another.

You, me, Olee, Tirib, Raj, Eph, Obama, John Doe, Plato, Tom Coughlin, Whitney Houston, Genghis Khan, the plumber down the street.

See Romans 1.[/quote]

Next time someone asks this question start with clarifying it applies to everyone. Atheists sometimes think they are special so if you single them out in a statement they are less likely to believe you.[/quote]

I’ve clarified it many times. You’re still suffering from FNGitis so you didn’t know this.

NOW that YOU know this and apparently agree I think it’s incumbent on YOU to clarify it in the future that it indeed applies to everyone. Wouldn’t you agree that if YOU think it’s so important that it bears repeating that YOU would admonish me to preach it over and over again that maybe li’l ol’ YOU might just share the obligation to perpetuate this principle?

Whadda ya think? You gonna pitch in and carry your share of the load?[/quote]

I have no problem clarifying things like this to people.

137

Wow. Morality is quite the heaver hitter in PWI.

I contend that there are two kinds of morality. One that is physically ingrained in us, including such things as hesitation to kill, mortally wound, or behave with cruelty towards other living things (especially humans), and one we invent with our higher reasoning abilities.

Personally, I say to Hell with morals and instead approach each moment with a fresh outlook, unburdened by rigid, predefined rules of conduct. Reason and compassion is enough.

140

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

I post you the merriam-webster definition and you respond with some guy’s opinion? My opinion is that this guy is groping and changing the established definitions to suit his purposes. As his definition hasn’t ended up in the official dictionary, I’m not buying it.[/quote]

Tell me, what do you think merriam-webster definition is? It’s ALSO an opinion. The difference here is I posted a link from American Atheists.

[quote]Oleena wrote:

That’s not the way the rest of the world uses those words, so I don’t see the point of me starting to.

[/quote]

Actually it is. This is your problem, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Do some research on the term “agnostic atheist.” Maybe you have some sort of sticking point calling yourself an atheist and that’s why you’re arguing this so vehemently.

Here is another one from about.com

"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a �??�??�??�??�?�¢??third way�??�??�??�??�?�¢?? between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge �??�??�??�??�?�¢?? it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

Here’s another one from ironchariots.org: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

“Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn’t claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn’t find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist). Other ways in which the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist can be combined are discussed below.”

[/quote]

So how would you define someone who claimed to know for sure that God did not exist?[/quote]

Gnostic atheist. But almost no one holds this position.

[/quote]

There are a whole bunch of people in Seattle who hold that position and have even derived logical proofs of it. That’s right, logical arguments regarding how it is impossible that God exists, not regarding how it’s impossible to know whether or not God exists.

This is why I’m hesitant to say that your definitions are helpful. These people don’t call their group “Gnostic Atheists”; they just call themselves atheists and those who don’t buy their proofs or believe in God “agnostic”. [/quote]

Are they claiming with absolute certainty that god doesn’t exist or just reasonably certain?

I’m reasonably certain that in the relative world, things relative to us god doesn’t exist, but I do not claim to be absolutely certain. Those are two very different things.

Gnosticism is based on absolute certainty.

[/quote]

Absolute. They are presenting proofs of how it’s not possible for God to exist.