Let’s Talk About Atheism, Agnosticism and Theism!

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Username, May 2, 2013.

  1. Username Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    180
    I disagree with the definitions in the sticky so this is a thread where everyone can discuss them.

    If you disagree with religion then you are non-religious. Meaning religiosity isn’t something you take part in.

    Atheism isn’t a worldview, yet it is the denial, doubt or rejection of any belief in god or the possibility that any god (could) exist. If someone doesn’t believe (whether it be in rose petals, goblins, their spouse or god) then they are an atheist. There is no room for skepticism other than some quack ideas about something they know little to nothing about, that nothing being god – if god exists, because atheist don’t know and don’t care to know and tend to follow the same old false dichotomy like many theist. This is a black and white way of thinking (example): “It’s either my way or the highway!”

    Agnosticism is like a wacky conundrum that people sometimes mistake for atheism, which it is not. It is a position of neutrality between atheism and theism. A neutral position would also reject both atheism and theism and make no claims about either or, besides disagreeing with both positions, because neither one is plausible. That does not mean an agnostic does not or does believe in any god or excludes the possibility that any god exists.

    Discuss!

    Also, if you want to give a definition for theism then go ahead. You can give a different definition for atheism and agnosticism as well, that is if you flat out disagree with the ones I have provided.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    It's generally not possible to learn anything substantial about what a person really believes, or doesn't, without an extended dialogue. Terms like atheism, agnostic atheism, agnosticism, agnostic theism, theism (just to name a few -- seriously) aren't really all that useful I don't think. One might even resort to utilizing a spectrum of theistic probability in order to be even more specific, but without reference to some particular conception of god, and some particular theology, it still doesn't tell you all that much. Moreover, people like me move up and down the scale depending on what sort of conception of god is on the table, and I generally don't nail down my stances anyway.

    I guess my point here is that it's probably not possible to define any of these terms in a way that properly encapsulates a philosophical stance held by any actual person, unless you purposely exclude a bunch of people who you'd then need to define a new more specific category for also, and that would merely be the very beginning of the process.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Rav - totally right. Terms are useless in this.

    A small minority of all humans have some sort of spiritual experience, you cannot explain. There lens of hate with that experience, is what made the religions we have.

    All humans open upto the same thing, its just the lens of hate of that person that makes the terms op described. I never label myself, and some part of all religions has some truth to it.

    Ask a thousand people about god or spiritual, and they all have something different to say and explain there beliefs. Thats why the lens of hate of these people is important as we all have it.

    The jews and the muslims open upto the same things, but its there lens of hate that dictates there beliefs.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Username Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    180
    I would describe myself as an agnostic by my definition and if there was no difference between agnosticism and atheism then there would be no need for different words, which include different meanings. :bugeye:

    I tend to think words have meanings for a reason. Such as saying someone is "pro-this" or "anti-that."

    If someone is an atheist then they are anti-religion or anti-theism. If someone is a theist then they are pro-religion and whatever religion entails.
     
  8. Username Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    180
    I think I would agree to a certain extent. People tend to have differing views and beliefs regarding many different subjects. As in there is no need to categorize someone into a certain category unless they choose to be categorized as such.

    Also: Apologizes for doing away with the URLs. That is the only way I could respond to your post.
     
  9. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,848
    Never the less, the words do not define your being, they merely give an idea to others, as to what ''camp'' you're in.

    jan.
     
  10. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,848
    Regarding ''atheism'' and ''agnosticsm'', there is a difference in the words. There tends not to be an awful lot of differences between them when we hear from some agnostics. If for example one is agnostic against theism, their dialogue tends to be atheist, and we are only reminded that they hold an agnostic position because they say so.

    In your definition of ''theist'' you imply that ''theism'' and ''religion'' are mutually exclusive, this isn't the case. Religion, while claiming ''God'' as their objective, may not have ''God'' as their objective, unless you see ''God'' as arbitary.
    Belief in God ''theism'' means you actually believe in God regardless of religion. One can't believe in God, and not believe in God at the same time.

    jan.
     
  11. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    I have no interest in words, or terms to describe me. I am me, and no one knows me other than me.

    Like for instance.

    Virtually every history book on any human beings life is wrong, other than some facts they may know. From what i have seen, no other human can understand me, and they absolutely wrecked my life. But my point is, that my life has proved that no other human being can understand you. So any history book written on any human is just plain rubbish. Other than historical facts, history books are bunk. Trying to understand historical figures is useless.

    I know from my own life, that being targeted and them always being wrong about my life, means that other humans cannot understand others beyond there own lens of hate they have themselves, and they project stuff into what ever ways they judge others.

    So me saying i am this and that will limit anyones idea to what my ideas and my person is and what i believe.

    Even things like male and female are far more open to question i believe, as you have feminine males and you have masculine females.

    The only term i like to put on me, is that i am "Me". I do have beliefs, and those beliefs are both left and right in the spectrum of what others think. But i never put labels on what i totally believe as i think we as humans are far more complex.

    If you have ever been targeted in any way by your gov or what ever, you know how awful there judgements on your life can be. I am absolutely staggered at how wonderful the techs they do have to target you, but on the other hand they need humans to analyse that data, and this is where humans are absolutely rubbish, at understanding others.
    This is why i would suggest that virtually all history books written on people are rubbish. The authors are projecting themselves into the persons they are writing about, and probably virtually none of it is true.
     
  12. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    It is actually very simple.
    Let me ask you this: Do you believe in (a) god?

    Definitely not true.
     
  13. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,848
    andy1033,

    I concur with ''I am me'', but it may not be entirely true that no one knows you other than you. How much do you know yourself?
     
  14. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    I know me and thats all that really matters. I am not sure anyone can answer that question, beyond they know what they know about themselves at that time, i am writing this. Maybe in the future i will know more about myself, but right at this time, i know as much as i can know if you understand me.

    No one knows me, as people tend to learn most from listening to people speak, or being with them. I do not speak verbally so no one knows me in that way, or really has interacted with me.

    So absolutely no one knows me other than me, and i only speak for my beliefs and thoughts.

    So in summing up, you can only know as much about yourself at any time as you know. As you do not know what you do not know, and maybe more will come later. But one thing is for sure, no one will ever understand my life, or know me. Thankfully no one ever will know me, other than a few words written here. The uk gov people targeting my life have never been right in anything they made up to justify there targeting. This makes me absolutely sure that as good as they think they are, they cannot work out anyone, beyond there own references of how humans behave or act.
     
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The distinctions between atheism, theism and agnosticism are a function of the two sides of the brain and how these process data. The left brain is differential and tries to separate the world into details with rational interactions. I think therefore I am is left brain. Atheism and science is more left brained, with specialization an artifact of the left brain's differentiation.

    The right brain is more intuitive and holistic and attempts to integrate reality and data. Theism makes use of spatial concepts like God as a holistic way to explain all with an integrating concept. Mother nature is a holistic right brain concept for life. Polytheism would have been right brain, but with some left brain support, specializing tasks to various gods and goddesses, but with "God" explaining all. Agnosticism attempts to bridge the two sides of the brain, combining the logic of science with the intuitive holistic of theism.

    The way the brain works is although we have two sides of the brain, we can only consciously use one side at a time. The other side is still functional in real time, but becomes used by the unconscious mind. This will gives the opposite side a more primitive and/or compelling quality compared to one who can consciously use that side.

    Atheism, which has a high level of conscious control of the left brain, would be more unconscious of the right brain. This unconsciousness adds an intuitive feeling of integration, while denying historical human behavior data. Real science does not throw out data points to suit a philosophy. Religion, which is more right brain, would be more unconscious of the left brain. This will make it more compulsive about details; dogma of religion and holy words.

    Religion and atheism tend to battle without apparent resolution because both are halves of the whole, with each side reflecting the one side of the brain that the other is more unconscious of. The battle (attraction-repulsion) helps to make the unconscious conscious via the other. The agnostic attempts synthesis of the two so both sides of the brain work together; differential and integral. I would be considered an agnostic. I would argue pro-religion in science sites, since the right brain of science needs to be made more conscious with my push toward polarization helping to show the way. It may take many lessons to learn.

    The Agnostic use of both sides of the brain is analogous to a distillation/condensation process. If we start with the right brain, its nature of integration, helps to condense data into a 3-D structure; theory. Because any new theory is not perfect, one will need to use the left brain to distill it into differential components to make sure all the parts belong in the structure and are not contaminants; critical thinking. The new data and analysis is condensed again in the right brain, etc. Since only the left brain processes language, it ultimately needs to end left brain for translation from intuition so others can understand it.

    The use of both sides in a conscious way is part of human evolution, with the atheist and theist specialization in each side of the brain, helping the agnostics learn to do both. Theism and atheism is sort of like two guys fighting, yet combining arms, so the agnostic can lifted up to scale the wall of both side of the brain. Then they try to lift them up and over.
     
  16. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,848
    andy1033,

    In that case someone can know you according to what they know of you at that time.


    Mannerism, body language, and the like can be a way of knowing somebody, or to be more precise knowing something about somebody.


    How do we know that we know what we know?
    IOW, can you prove what you know, or even give evidence that you know what you know?


    What prevents someone from knowing you better than you know yourself?

    They can know about your ''legal fiction'' (strawman) character, or at least as much as they need to know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    No. An atheist really is just someone who either (depending on who you ask) doesn't believe in any gods, or believes no gods exist. There is nothing about atheism that mandates a negative view of religion or godhood, nor anything that discourages a positive view of such. It's entirely possible that someone who does not believe enjoys aspects of religion and wishes all the stories were true. And those who are atheists and are also against organized religion sometimes call themselves "anti-theists."

    And I'd say it's even more common to find a theist who is against any and all organized forms of religion. These people tend to call themselves spiritualists, and perhaps believe in vague concepts of god, but that still counts.
     
  18. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    I would put it this way. No

    The person who would be trying to know you, would be trying to understand you from there own lens of hate. That person would be projecting all those issues into what they think you are.

    Everything i write, as i do not talk to anyone, is the only way someone knows me. But they are just reading my stuff projecting what they want into my words. We all do this. When you read a book, your projecting what your lens of hate is, into that.

    There is no way for another to know me, as me. They will know me from what they project into what they think i am.

    If you think you know someone other than yourself, thats your bag, but i seriously doubt it.
     
  19. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    For the most part that body language stuff like the gov use does not work. It may work in a number of cases, but it does not work with me.

    How do you judge someone whom is different than others, and does not act in social norms?

    I have heard all that body language stuff, but personally from my own experience body language only is ok with some sort of empathy. Most people do not understand what empathy is. Trying body language without empathy is useless.
     
  20. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,434
    I would add that most atheists also tend to characterize themselves as skeptics. username's original definitions are biased.
     
  21. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,848
    andy1033,

    1, How do you know?

    2, They may not need to.

    3, Then you are a special case because you are making an effort not to be known by limiting your communication. But it begs the question why, if no one can know you but you, you would have to go to such lengths to not be known.

    4, You seem to think that ''hate'' is built into every human as a natural mechanism. If so, why?

    jan.
     
  22. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,848
    Who ISN'T skeptical?
    Why is it only associated with atheism?

    jan.
     
  23. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,434
    It isn't, but atheists are especially skeptical. username implied that atheists are the least skeptical. I've heard this line before, atheists are like just like evangelical fundamentalists, atheism is a religion, blah blah blah. It's BS.
     

Share This Page