Last week I made my first foray into the atheist community, after a good long while of looking into local groups and events (some severely outdated, some frighteningly vague) I finally attended a casual meeting.
There was close to thirty people, everyone was very polite and seemed to appreciate that I really had no particular experience interacting with other non-believers. A lot of discussions about science, local histories, some jokes about eating babies and there was even a "red heathen piggybank" signed by Richard Dawkins. All in all I had a nice time and plan to attend more get togethers, the organizer has even inspired me to get a membership to the Arizona Science Center. The only uncomfortable part for me were certain disparities between me and everyone else, there was only one other person under thirty and quite possibly the only one who could be called lower-class. It didn't surprise me and no one seemed unsettled by the twenty-three year old gas station clerk but I certainly felt like a fish out of water at times.
Like I said, this was my first time socializing in the Atheist community, a thing I hardly thought possible at all. What have your experiences been like?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't socialize in the atheist community. I'm not a member of an atheist community; I actually find the idea sort of ridiculous. I'm an atheist who belongs to many communities, some of which have more atheists than others.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I wouldn't say that there is anything ridiculous about using a certain common trait or interest as a basis of interaction. It isn't as if we all just sat around bad mouthing believers, it was simply comfortable to speak to like-minded people with who I didn't have to censor myself. Arizona is very christian state and I have had some very strange reactions to stating my beliefs before, knowing that no one there will consider me to be an amoral less than American heathen was a rare comfort.
[ March 19, 2012, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I was in a humanist group for some years before I moved out of the area. I really loved being involved in it. We had a monthly book club, movie night, social gathering and general meeting with a speaker. We also did various other social activities and community service events. I miss it!
We were short on young people, but not quite at the level you describe. Young people just tend not to get involved in community organizations...of any kind...at the same level that older people do. I don't think it's particularly the atheist community. Though as our group grew and we started having more events, younger folks started getting involved more.
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
There are probably a lot of people who would like a church type social interaction, but who don't happen to believe in god. As a misanthropic atheist, I have little interest in any type of meeting, but I know people who don't believe who stay involved in churches for the people.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The rationality community in NYC has the opposite problem, where almost everyone is under 30 and it feels a little weird when an older person shows up.
Then there's the Ethical Culture society, where median age is like 55. I wanted us to integrate with them as some kind of affiliated group but it felt really awkward.
For the past year I'd been dismissive of "atheist" groups. Atheism is the beginning of a worldview, not the end, and I thought groups should be "about" something rather than about a lack of something. But recently I've been speaking with atheists from the deep south, where the battlelines are being drawn around their right to exist and the notion that science is *real*, and genuine oppression is happening. In those places, atheist groups make more sense to me.
I'm fortunate in NYC to have a variety of groups nearby, each with different purposes.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Good point Raymond, a lot probably depends on geographic location.
Are you involved with the NYC Skeptics?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
No. So far I've been involved with two Rationality groups (one officially affiliated with Less Wrong, one not, but heavily inspired by), Ethical Culture (basically for older atheists who like the feel of Catholic mass), and two branches of the Center for Inquiry.
One of the CFI branches was in Harlem and focuses on African American issues (such as the stereotype in some black communities that being an atheist is "acting white" and is defecting from the community). The other one was more white dominated. Both of them skewed a little older than the Rationality groups (25-40 rather than 20-30).
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't socialize in the atheist community. I'm not a member of an atheist community; I actually find the idea sort of ridiculous. I'm an atheist who belongs to many communities, some of which have more atheists than others.
This.
My somewhat limited experience with atheists who too heavily defined themselves around being atheists has actually been quite negative. I think because it meant they were still essentially defining themselves around God.
That is, they're actively rejecting god instead of simply accepting that he doesn't exist and then moving on. This went hand in hand with wholesale rejection of Judeo-Christian values in general (to stick it to God, I guess?), which I think is a terrible idea.
That being said, it sounds like you had fun, so presumably the folks at your group were more mellow. I hope you continue to have fun, and don't run into too many bitter, amoral/relativistic atheists. Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
There was one, and he stuck out like a sore thumb of hatred and malaise. When I arrived there was one long table full of people and three feet away one guy playing some neurotic form of tictactoe with playing cards, I sat quietly at the other end of his table and was very happy when more attendees filled in the surrounding seats. No one was very interested in his presence, including himself it seemed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: [QB] This went hand in hand with wholesale rejection of Judeo-Christian values in general (to stick it to God, I guess?), which I think is a terrible idea.
Mmmm. I've never been a member of an atheist organization of any kind, but the vast majority of Anglophones where I live are atheists, as are most natives.
I quite enjoy people who are unapologetically non-religious. However, I have known a number of atheists, usually coming from more conservative backgrounds or religious families, who are not so much atheists, as, well, "haters." The "dead baby" meme mentioned in the OP is a perfect example. These types of people are so insecure about themselves and their place in the universe that, having rejected God (different from simply not having ever been enticed by religion), they must be overtly provocative in their rejections of social mores. To be "conformist," not swearing, not insulting, not impinging upon the comfort of others, is too much for some of these people to handle. They're essentially the same as the evangelists who go from "Homosexuality is a Sin," to "God Hates Fags." It's weak. It's the sign of a narrow mind and a level of insecurity I don't comprehend.
And, sadly, as some Christians would love to sell you the notion that they, and only they, understand and can do family, love, kindess, charity, and moral living, the reaction of some is to be disgusted by the facade of any of these images.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: For the past year I'd been dismissive of "atheist" groups. Atheism is the beginning of a worldview, not the end, and I thought groups should be "about" something rather than about a lack of something. But recently I've been speaking with atheists from the deep south, where the battlelines are being drawn around their right to exist and the notion that science is *real*, and genuine oppression is happening. In those places, atheist groups make more sense to me.
As a younger person my extended social network has always been mostly made up of areligious people and non-believers. My reasons for joining a Humanist group were very much, "okay, we don't believe in god. great. let's move on and talk about ethics and social issues and current events with like minded people. let's promote science education and help out in our community." But I was amazed at how many older people came to the group who had never been able to talk about their atheism with other non-believers before. Who were ostracized by their families and their communities and who felt a lot of resentment towards the religion. These people needed a support network and an outlet to vent their anger and frustration. It was nice that we had a large enough organization that everyone was able to get out of the group what they needed.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: But I was amazed at how many older people came to the group who had never been able to talk about their atheism with other non-believers before. Who were ostracized by their families and their communities
I can only imagine living quietly for another forty years. Just yesterday my grandmother was in town so we went to lunch, when she asked what I've been up to lately I told her that I had gone to a casual meeting for atheists and she said nothing and was extremely uncomfortable, she couldn't help but laugh when I mentioned that there was talk of baby eating. Despite the fact that no one in my extended family has been actively christian for the last forty years I am still seen as wrong and no one besides my mother is willing to even broach the subject with me. Even then she has said that she would rather I were gay than atheist, a very silent and confusing prejudice indeed.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That's really sad, AH. I'm sorry.
My parents would've rather I been a gay atheist than a conservative/libertarian type. Parents often don't get what they want, especially if what they want is for their kid to think a certain thing.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
The really discouraging part is that I was talking to her about a testimonial of sorts I had read from a gay/black/atheist (poor s.o.b.) who had been openly gay to his baptist family for years when he told them about his disbelief, his mother took it far worse than his homosexuality. To my shock my own mother found that to be the most obvious thing in the world.
Have you ever googled "best state in America for atheists?" I sure have, and it is not very reassuring.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I live in the SF Bay Area, which, at a guess (just based on my gut and the people around me), is probably near the top in terms of nice places in the country for atheists. The biggest problem I find here is the number of atheists fitting the description I laid out above (bitter, amoral, still spend an awful lot of time thinking about god considering they don't think he's real. Less atheist, more antitheist, essentially.)
That being said, I've also lived in a very religious, rural part of Arizona, and in general, I'm not sure how much it matters how many atheists there are in your state.
I mean, I get it when you're talking about your family. It sucks to feel alienated from the people closest to you.
But unlike your family, you can choose your friends. Even in very religious Arizona, it wasn't hard to make friends who were, if not atheist themselves, then at the very least not so rabidly religious that my atheism was a problem.
So I guess what I'm saying is, don't worry too much about those google results. There are decent people everywhere, you just have to find the ones that synch with you. Don't be discouraged!
Posted by I Used to Be a Drummer (Member # 12787) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The biggest problem I find here is the number of atheists fitting the description I laid out above (bitter, amoral, still spend an awful lot of time thinking about god considering they don't think he's real. Less atheist, more antitheist, essentially.)
Yeah, there are a lot of sub-types and motivations for atheism that don't easily fit under the same tent. I have almost no knowledge at all of Communist atheism under the Soviet Union, but I imagine that the staunch hardline Communists atheists there are/were a very different breed altogether.
I get the feeling (and I may be wrong) that THEIR type of atheism is a more "hating-the-church" issue, than a true non-belief in God/gods. I get the feeling that they think the church is partially blameworthy in the horrific treatment of the Russian people by the czars.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:My somewhat limited experience with atheists who too heavily defined themselves around being atheists has actually been quite negative. I think because it meant they were still essentially defining themselves around God.
That is, they're actively rejecting god instead of simply accepting that he doesn't exist and then moving on.
I so thoroughly agree with this. I called myself atheist for a while, but now I prefer "not religious". It seems like the majority of people who proudly wear the atheist sign are so full of bitterness, self-righteous outrage, and condescension that I don't feel that I identify with them.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I still prefer apatheist.
Not a socializer, me.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"It seems like the majority of people who proudly wear the atheist sign are so full of bitterness, self-righteous outrage, and condescension that I don't feel that I identify with them. "
Well, you seem a bit condescending and self-righteous towards them.
I'm an atheist too. This isn't an "identity" (my identity is 'Aris Katsaris'), it just describes my lack of belief in theism. So I don't need to fit in with other atheists before I can call myself one. How well I like other atheists is just irrelevant.
If you believe theism to be false, then you're an atheist too, regardless of whether you call yourself one or not. That's just what the word means.
"Non-religious" describes something significantly less precise.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* I really hate the term "apatheist," or attempts to say, "Hey, I'm not really an atheist because I'm not full of hate and anger." It makes it harder for the rest of us.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Most atheists I know are scared away from organized atheism as an identity — or lean on the use of terms like "apatheist" to separate themselves from atheist associations — because the Atheist Identity types in groups often end up coming off as insufferable as their evangelical counterparts.
see: r/atheism, the greatest reminder to log in to reddit since ever
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
Non-believers who don't feel comfortable as being called atheists or apatheists usually can find a home in agnosticism, or in one of the sub-categories of agnosticism. I'm an agnostic, veering towards agnostic atheism. It's an intellectual and philosophical choice for me.
Here in Finland it's hard to find fanatic theists, as the great majority of christians are pro-science, pro-religious freedom, pro-choice, and so on. The organized atheism is mostly very fanatic, with people defining themselves as strong opponents of anything religious. In practice they come off as very similar to fanatic religious people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm an agnostic, veering towards agnostic atheism. It's an intellectual and philosophical choice for me.
I find this baffling, as agnosticism seems like an almost indefensible philosophical choice. Are you defining it differently?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I think it would be fair to mention that part of why I enjoyed myself beyond the simple fact of consorting other atheists, is the fact that I am and have always been sober and do not like being around inebriated people. Socializing is not very easy when you take out churches and bars, I like going to hockey games and live music but those aren't really comfortable places to meet new people, and if you do they are usually drunk.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I can empathize with the lack of interest in bars, but there really are a lot of other ways to meet new people that don't involve alcohol. Have you looked into meetup.com for your area? Personally I've had success with book clubs, hiking groups, crafting circles, and board game nights, but I'm sure you can find activities more tailored for your own interests. Look for things that meet in coffee shops.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
The atheist group is on meetup actually, but I hadn't considered investigating the rest of the site.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Oh, cool. I'm sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious, here. Learning how to get dropped somewhere and build a social group from scratch was a huge uphill battle for me, and now that I've more or less got it down I can be a bit overenthused.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I could use some enthusiasm, my life for the past few years has been just shy of agoraphobic and I know it needs to change.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
All right, well, here's ambyr's tips on building a social group out of existing group activities(sans church, alcohol, or old school friends) for introverts, which may or may not be at all applicable to you. I think this is common-sense stuff for most people, but alas, not for me.
1. Activity-based gatherings are better than interest-based gatherings. They give you something besides conversation to focus on when you're feeling flustered or intimidated while at the same time providing an instant topic of discussion.
2. At any given event, pick one or two people you'd like to get to know better. That doesn't mean don't talk to anyone else, but focus on them. Group meetings are great, but the goal is to meet people you can socialize with outside of a public event. Besides, if you're like me you only really retain a couple new people's names and relevant personal details (spouses, jobs, kids, whatever) at a time.
3. Ask people questions to elicit those personal details. Slowly, not all at once (and be aware that if they're not asking any back they're probably not interested), but don't just focus on the topic of the gathering at hand. That builds acquaintances, not friends.
4. If someone invites you to do something outside the group, say yes--and follow up. Get their e-mail, ask them for directions, propose dates if they haven't already. Obviously this doesn't apply if they make you deeply uncomfortable--trust those instincts--but don't overthink whether they really meant it and, if it's a multi-person activity they're inviting you to, go even if you think they're a little dull or don't quite share your interests. Who knows, you might like some of the other people you meet there.
5. Invite other people to do things. Semi-public things; inviting people to your apartment works better once you're semi-well known in the group. But if people are talking about a new movie, start organizing a group trip to see it; a new restaurant, work out a time when several people can go to dinner. I have yet to meet a social circle that isn't direly in need of more event planners. Most people operate on inertia; they're happy to be invited places but rarely initiate. Don't be those people.
6. Figure out how you can be helpful to the group and do it. Be the one bringing the board game or the hiking map; offer to pick up ice or plastic silverware; stick around and clean up. Do one thing and do it consistently so it becomes what you're known for.
7. Conversely, let other people help you. It is a weirdness of human nature that people tend to feel kindly towards those they've done favors for--and resentful of those who've helped them, if it doesn't balance out. Give and take. Ask for rides if you need them, ask for help understanding how to do something, ask for advice on pretty much everything. People love giving advice. (Exhibit A right here.)
8. Mix your social groups. Meet someone at chess club and someone else at atheist group and think they'd get along? Introduce them. The benefit is that if they get along, they're liable to start inviting each other to things, and now there's two people you know at an event where you might have only known one. But, conversely, don't push too hard and fall into geek social fallacy 4. Some people don't mix. Try once or twice and move on.
9. Don't rule anyone out on the basis of age, sex, class, or any other surface trait. If you're meeting at an activity- or interest-based gathering, you already know you have something in common. Conversely, yeah, it can be lonely to be the only one to share certain experiences. Ask around: has the group ever had attendees who meet the traits you're looking for? A lot of times a group will coalesce around a certain trait--being over 50, being male, whatever--and individuals who don't share that trait will drop in for a week or two, feel lonely, and drop out. If the group has a history of attracting but not keeping people who match the traits you want, see if you can stick around and be a nucleus. Having one other person like them there can be the thing that gets them to stay in the future. If the group never attracts people outside of its core demographic...well, odds are good there's another local group focused around the same interest but with a very different demographic that you might want to look for. Sometimes things factionalize.
10. If there are core aspects of your identity you don't want to have to hide, be open about them from the get go (but casually so; no need for an in-your-face "I'm X! What do you think about that?"). Better to find out at the first event or two that you won't fit in; there's no scarcity of groups to try (really! there's not! I have to tell myself this a lot), so why waste time trying to make friends with people with whom it ultimately isn't going to work? For me, this means dropping a mention of my girlfriend early on and seeing how people react. For you, it might mean, I don't know, having a copy of Dawkins's latest book sticking out of your bag.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I think it would be fair to mention that part of why I enjoyed myself beyond the simple fact of consorting other atheists, is the fact that I am and have always been sober and do not like being around inebriated people. Socializing is not very easy when you take out churches and bars, I like going to hockey games and live music but those aren't really comfortable places to meet new people, and if you do they are usually drunk.
:sigh: man, if you think the way that people who aren't going to church are meeting is in bars, I'm sorry, that's very sad, because it means you think you're actually missing something.
I'll share this with you, because youre not the type for bars and you don't drink: people you meet in bars are either: a) alcoholics who have fun hanging out in bars, b) normal people who are at a bar for a special occasion at the same time you are, or c) people in their very early 20s who are trying to nerve themselves to attempt to do sex to each other. Not a typo. You get a little of d) which is people in late twenties, or 30s who are on dates, and e) guy/girl friends who get together at a specific establishment by habit, likely because none owns a big enough flat, or it's close to work.
"bar hopping" is a specific type of activity which has more to do with distinguishing one's place in society in relation to one's friends, in larger cities. Admittedly, bar hopping is just usually the preferred activity for alcoholics who are better looking, wealthier, younger, and in better shape than most. It's an activity that probably traces influences well back to early civilization- a public display of wealth and finery and leisure.
The idea that people in their adult years go to bars to extend their social circles, and even more, meet people of the opposite sex, is virtually all Hollywood fantasy. You *do* meet people, but the bar is a venue for doing what you would do anyway, which is see your friends. Almost no one goes it alone. It's just not something 95% of people are comfortable doing. You meet friends of your own friends, and you can do that anywhere. If you have no friends, have no fear, you can make friends by doing things with people who don't know they're your friends yet.
If you're over 23 and your idea of meeting new people is to go to a bar, you're not doing it right. Unless the friends you want are drunks.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:The idea that people in their adult years go to bars to extend their social circles, and even more, meet people of the opposite sex, is virtually all Hollywood fantasy. You *do* meet people, but the bar is a venue for doing what you would do anyway, which is see your friends. Almost no one goes it alone.
There's a not insignificant number of people that do exactly that. Where a person lives makes a large difference, but I know quite a few people that go to a local, neighborhood bar after work for happy hour. They get dinner at the bar and casually chat with the bartender and anyone else sitting near them, many of which are not drunk/alcoholics/looking for hookups/on a date/with a group of friends. After doing this for a while, you get to know the locals and the regulars and conversing with them becomes easier and easier. And it's not like you have to drink alcohol. There's been a number of times that I've just drank coffee and read a book.
I readily admit that this is not something for everyone, but I do think it can be an enjoyable way of casually socializing.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
In response to Ambyr. I honestly copied that and saved it to be examined quite possible several times over in the days to follow. I don't need to be around atheists perse but I genuinely can't stand drugs and booze any better than I can someone trying to talk me into going to church all the time. I know it sounds like a cop out, but Arizona is not known for its intellectual community or its sobriety not too mention my generations loving relationship with heavy drug use.
In response to Orincoro. That is exactly my problem, I can't stand inebriated people. I work alone and lost my last good friend to sheer uncouthly betrayal years ago, since then I've been content to spend my free time by myself and now I'm trying to be social again. I even go to concerts and the like alone with a book to read between bands, at one show some drunk girls decided that the big blonde guy should be the new addition to their group, I really did try but they were all drunk and couldn't understand why I would read a book if I don't go to school and how I could wear a Flogging Molly t-shirt and never drink. Right now I'm happy to have found a place where my atheism and bibliophilia do not mark me as an outsider.
Now if someone could point me in the direction of a place where I could meet women my age who have manners, are readers, don't do use any drugs or alcohol without that place being a church or an Ivy League school that I can only enter as janitor... I would sing your praises until the day I die. I understand that there are and will always be pockets of all different types of people, but I have had no luck finding the group where I belong and the only ones trying to recruit me are of the despot kind.
quote: If you have no friends, have no fear, you can make friends by doing things with people who don't know they're your friends yet.
It may just be me, but that sounds pretty creepy.
Sorry everyone, I had no intention of turning this into a pity party, continue on with the discussion of apatheism and the like. The Apatheist's does sound like a good band name though... Edit to add. After thinking about it, over a cruddy speaker and microphone The Apatheist's would sound more like The Ape-Thieves, which is still good.
[ March 20, 2012, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Now if someone could point me in the direction of a place where I could meet women
Unsolicited tip #11: don't be That Guy. In a lot of geek social groups--and I gather in the public atheist community--men heavily outnumber women. The women accordingly tend to develop a really strong sense of when a man is being friendly in hopes of later being more than friendly, versus when someone genuinely wants to just be friends. And the former is really, really common. Unless the event you're at is explicitly dating focused, you want to be careful not to come off as being there to meet women, as opposed to people in general.
The "friend zone" or whatever you want to call it is not a bad place to be. Women talk to each other. If you have a reputation as being a stand-up friend who isn't pushy to women who aren't looking for relationships, they're likely to speak well of you when they encounter women who are.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Now if someone could point me in the direction of a place where I could meet women
Unsolicited tip #11: don't be That Guy.
Oh, heck yeah.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I didn't mean in that way, I was just venting some personal frustration with the fact that I haven't met many women like that at all, let alone in my age group. It tends to get to you after so long, and this thread seems to have a lot of me whining and that little thought dribbled out. And believe me, I did not go to that atheist meetup to hunt for a woman, I am genuinely grateful for any interesting people to talk to and get to know after so many years of working in an environment where if you read a book for fun people assume you must be going to college.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I didn't mean in that way
Fair enough :-). It's just a big red flag. There's certainly nothing wrong with hoping that some day you will meet a person of your gender of interest with whom you click. That's biology and all.
As a side note, I have no idea where in Arizona you are but I see that Tempe's having a science fiction convention in a couple weeks. Maybe check that out? Conventions can be kind of awkward places to meet new people because lots of attendees have been coming for years or decades and now show up mainly to hang out with old friends, but if you go in with the limited goal of finding one interesting person (ideally who looks as slightly lost and confused as you probably do), hanging out with them a bit, and maybe grabbing lunch together, you can have surprising success at building something lasting. (Well, assuming you get their e-mail and follow up with an invite to something else.)
If money is an issue, conventions are usually desperate for volunteers to set things up, take things down, and staff info desks. Shoot them an e-mail and see if they have some sort of policy of refunding your membership in exchange for hours of volunteer service; most do. (Some even offer free food and sleeping space if you put in enough time.) And volunteering is usually a great way to meet people.
[ March 20, 2012, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: ambyr ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Now if someone could point me in the direction of a place where I could meet women
Unsolicited tip #11: don't be That Guy. In a lot of geek social groups--and I gather in the public atheist community--men heavily outnumber women. The women accordingly tend to develop a really strong sense of when a man is being friendly in hopes of later being more than friendly, versus when someone genuinely wants to just be friends. And the former is really, really common. Unless the event you're at is explicitly dating focused, you want to be careful not to come off as being there to meet women, as opposed to people in general.
The "friend zone" or whatever you want to call it is not a bad place to be. Women talk to each other. If you have a reputation as being a stand-up friend who isn't pushy to women who aren't looking for relationships, they're likely to speak well of you when they encounter women who are.
Yeah, this is absolutely right.
Let me just add that, setting aside whether or not "the friend zone" is a good place to be, it is a repugnant concept. Anyone who genuinely believes "the friend zone" exists doesn't actually deserve to be there, because that would mean they were decent enough to be friends with the opposite sex, which is doubtful.
Also in the category of guys who are too stupid and subtly misogynistic to be friends with women: Self-proclaimed nice guys. Anyone who says that girls don't like nice guys because the girl they were nice to didn't have sex with them is not actually very nice at all.
(AH: None of this is directed at you, in case it isn't obvious. Just me ranting at a couple of commonly misogynistic bits of nerd culture that annoy the crap out of me.)
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I live in the goldilocks zone of Phoenix, between the police response time of the upper class area and the housing prices of the hood. That actually looks pretty interesting, thanks Ambyr.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I didn't mean in that way, I was just venting some personal frustration with the fact that I haven't met many women like that at all, let alone in my age group. It tends to get to you after so long, and this thread seems to have a lot of me whining and that little thought dribbled out. And believe me, I did not go to that atheist meetup to hunt for a woman, I am genuinely grateful for any interesting people to talk to and get to know after so many years of working in an environment where if you read a book for fun people assume you must be going to college.
You are working in the wrong place, if this is how you feel. I had a jb like that, a long time ago, and I left.
Also, any way you did mean it, your whining tone is the reason you don't have friends. Its a cycle. You feel marginalized, you take that out on people who you meet. And they sense that you aren't friendly. Do you think I would be bothered by the fact that somebody might find it strange that I read? It bothered me when I was 12.
As I recall, you presented yourself here as a very judgmental and personally very sensitive young man when you first started posting. I think the judgmental stuff seems to be going away a bit. But I'd wager with confidence that you are overly sensitive and probably defensive to the point of prickliness in person. People view this as a sign of weakness, and it is not attractive to most.
I met someone recently, a woman, who had a very similar story to yours. Stayed home all the time, said that people treated her badly, didn't like bars, etc. she had been a year at a new job working with Americans. But she wanted to meet a man and have a social life. I asked her out, and we went on 5-6 dates. It quickly became apparent to me that though she was *shy* she was in fact also unbelievably self-centered. She had no idea. She thought people didn't like her because they didn't ever ask to socialize with her, but she would spend an evening out with a group of people, and not learn anything about anyone, and everyone would know something about her. Perfect example: I had her over for dinner, 4th date. In my living room is a full size piano keyboard and two very nice guitars. She did not even acknowledge their existence (and these kinds of details are *why* you have dinner dates at home). I stopped seeing her a week later. I'm quite sure her narrative Of this is at she didn't like bars, didn't know my friends, and was shy. Not that she made no effort to enjoy any of it, get to know my friends, or get to know me, to feel more comfortable around me. It got to be dreadful by the last time I saw her- she put me on edge after a while.
They say your twenties are a decade of pretending to enjoy the company of people you don't like, in places you would rather not be. There's truth in that, but we do it because we are trying, as hard as we can, to find our legs in life. If you aren't doing this, there may be something wrong.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I'll be honest...I've never understood Atheism, just as I've never fully understood extreme believers (of any faith). I actually find Agnosticism to be the most logical religion out of all of them, even though it's not the one I practice.
With that being said, I suppose it is good to meet new people in communities where you share a common interest, but just because these people are also Atheists doesn't mean that they will share any other interests with you. We're all just people, and there's a lot more to a person than just their beliefs.
If you think you might be open to it, give online dating a try. Your religion will be a determining factor in matching you up, but so will a lot of other things. I'd consider it, at least.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: They say your twenties are a decade of pretending to enjoy the company of people you don't like, in places you would rather not be.
They do? That's depressing. When did that happen?
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: They say your twenties are a decade of pretending to enjoy the company of people you don't like, in places you would rather not be.
They do? That's depressing. When did that happen?
I have no idea. I've found my 20s to be a lovely time of enjoying the company of people I like in places I want to be. I mean, that's the benefit of not being a teen any more: I get to pick my social circle. Unlike when I was in school.
Oh, and re: online dating, mentioned above, okcupid is probably the site to try if you want to meet other geeky atheists.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Now if someone could point me in the direction of a place where I could meet women
Unsolicited tip #11: don't be That Guy. In a lot of geek social groups--and I gather in the public atheist community--men heavily outnumber women. The women accordingly tend to develop a really strong sense of when a man is being friendly in hopes of later being more than friendly, versus when someone genuinely wants to just be friends. And the former is really, really common. Unless the event you're at is explicitly dating focused, you want to be careful not to come off as being there to meet women, as opposed to people in general.
The "friend zone" or whatever you want to call it is not a bad place to be. Women talk to each other. If you have a reputation as being a stand-up friend who isn't pushy to women who aren't looking for relationships, they're likely to speak well of you when they encounter women who are.
I'm trying to think of anything more likely to make a shy guy more awkward and less likely to be comfortable around women than thinking he has to walk that tightrope in addition to just getting up the guts to socialize at all. Knowing that the women are judging your every word and gesture, trying to see if you're really just a wolf in sheep's clothing, makes you feel like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Not to say that this isn't a valid point--you'll be much more comfortable if you don't go into every social situation with women merely bent on striking up a romance. You'll be seen as much more relaxed and easy to talk to, and things will progress so much more normally. But that's so counterintuitive for many guys and it's also a hard lesson to swallow.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: They say your twenties are a decade of pretending to enjoy the company of people you don't like, in places you would rather not be.
They do? That's depressing. When did that happen?
When I joined the Air Force Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: They say your twenties are a decade of pretending to enjoy the company of people you don't like, in places you would rather not be.
They do? That's depressing. When did that happen?
It's a witticism. It just means you put yourself in places you wouldn't pick straight off, and meet people you wouldn't choose to be friends with.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Ambyr: Yeah that was generally what I thought, too.
Jeff: That deserved a rimshot. I laughed.
Orincoro: I get that, I just don't understand why people would do that to themselves.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I'll be honest...I've never understood Atheism, just as I've never fully understood extreme believers (of any faith). I actually find Agnosticism to be the most logical religion out of all of them, even though it's not the one I practice.
If we're being honest, this seems to be a comment rooted in ignorance. Atheism isn't some religion practiced by "extreme believers". It is simply not believing in any deities. This isn't extreme on any level whatsoever.
And if you don't understand it, then I'd suggest an exercise. Do a Google search and look up all the various deities that people have ever believed in throughout history. There are hundreds (thousands?), but you can stop at somewhere around 50.
Make a list of them, and then on the side of each deity put an X next to those that you don't believe exists. If you are a monotheist, you are most likely going to end up with just one diety.
Now if you were an atheist you'd put an X next to that one too. And the reason why atheists think your deity doesn't exist is probably pretty close to why you don't believe the 49 deities you put an X next to don't exist.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'll be honest...I've never understood Atheism, just as I've never fully understood extreme believers (of any faith).
As an atheist I struggle with this conception of atheism as an "extreme" of belief. It does not seem extreme to me to reject as unlikely a proposition for which I have been exposed to no compelling positive evidence. My not believing in a god doesn't feel different to me than my not believing in telepathy or time travel or perpetual motion. And I suspect it's not much different than <member of religion A>'s lack of belief in <member of religion B>'s god.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Orincoro: I get that, I just don't understand why people would do that to themselves.
This.
I did do that a bit when I was a teenager, even though I already had many of the same beliefs I have now. Doing so led to more common or "normal" social interactions and relationships, but I found myself dealing with a lot of finks who were trying to amuse themselves by messing with the lives of others or I was driving myself crazy trying to figure out how to impress people who had nothing more than a fleeting interest in me. When things came to a zenith I pretty much gave up on convincing people of anything, let alone that they should like me or think that I am smart and good. It certainly doesn't help that I have spent the last four years working the graveyard shift alone in dangerous parts of Phoenix, but if being personally threatened with a gun isn't enough to make me take a lesser paying job for the sake of comfort/safety I doubt hoping to use my job as a launch pad to a social existence will either.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've never understood Atheism, just as I've never fully understood extreme believers (of any faith). I actually find Agnosticism to be the most logical religion out of all of them, even though it's not the one I practice.
Some observations, many of which have already been made:
1) Neither atheism nor agnosticism can be sensibly considered religions, although the Gnostics were arguably a religious sect.
2) The term "agnostic" is regularly misused to refer to people who aren't confident of the non-existence of God. That is not what the word means. If you do not believe that a god exists, even if you aren't certain that no god exists, you are an atheist. If you are calling yourself an agnostic because you don't think you're arrogant enough to call yourself atheist, you don't actually know what those words mean.
3) Atheism -- the lack of belief in a god -- seems to me to be far less "extreme" than almost any other alternative. In fact, it's considerably less extreme than actual agnosticism, and far less extreme than, say, Catholicism, which actually requires adherence to certain ethical principles and ritualistic behaviors based upon a belief in one specific god.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I just checked my facebook and randomly this was on there. Scarlet Letter, an atheist documentary. Coincidentally I was given one of those scarlet letter buttons at the meeting last week, and immediately put it on my favorite jacket.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I'll be honest...I've never understood Atheism, just as I've never fully understood extreme believers (of any faith). I actually find Agnosticism to be the most logical religion out of all of them, even though it's not the one I practice.
If we're being honest, this seems to be a comment rooted in ignorance. Atheism isn't some religion practiced by "extreme believers". It is simply not believing in any deities. This isn't extreme on any level whatsoever.
And if you don't understand it, then I'd suggest an exercise. Do a Google search and look up all the various deities that people have ever believed in throughout history. There are hundreds (thousands?), but you can stop at somewhere around 50.
Make a list of them, and then on the side of each deity put an X next to those that you don't believe exists. If you are a monotheist, you are most likely going to end up with just one diety.
Now if you were an atheist you'd put an X next to that one too. And the reason why atheists think your deity doesn't exist is probably pretty close to why you don't believe the 49 deities you put an X next to don't exist.
Really well put, I like this a lot.
(FYI, I make a point of identifying as an atheist *because* it shouldn't be a label attached to vocal obnoxious people)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Ambyr: Yeah that was generally what I thought, too.
Jeff: That deserved a rimshot. I laughed.
Orincoro: I get that, I just don't understand why people would do that to themselves.
Hah, they just do. EVerybody does it. I'm not necessarily talking about bars and clubs and the like, but yeah, everybody does it. Just like everybody pretends to be something they don't know how to really be when they're in college. It's what you do.
I have a friend in his early 30's who described it as "trying different lives on for size."
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I'll be honest...I've never understood Atheism, just as I've never fully understood extreme believers (of any faith). I actually find Agnosticism to be the most logical religion out of all of them, even though it's not the one I practice.
If we're being honest, this seems to be a comment rooted in ignorance. Atheism isn't some religion practiced by "extreme believers". It is simply not believing in any deities. This isn't extreme on any level whatsoever.
And if you don't understand it, then I'd suggest an exercise. Do a Google search and look up all the various deities that people have ever believed in throughout history. There are hundreds (thousands?), but you can stop at somewhere around 50.
Make a list of them, and then on the side of each deity put an X next to those that you don't believe exists. If you are a monotheist, you are most likely going to end up with just one diety.
Now if you were an atheist you'd put an X next to that one too. And the reason why atheists think your deity doesn't exist is probably pretty close to why you don't believe the 49 deities you put an X next to don't exist.
Really well put, I like this a lot.
Agreed. To add on to it:
Atheism: lack of belief in a deity Agnosticism: the stance that it's impossible to know with certainty whether or not a deity exists.
So in reality I'm both an atheist AND an agnostic, since I lack belief in god, but also think it's not a question I can ever know the answer to with 100% certainty (even if I'm 99.999% sure!).
The problem is those terms have taken on a colloquial meaning with agnosticsm just being a weak version of atheism.
Given that, when asked, I tend to just say I'm an atheist, because calling myself an agnostic gives the wrong impression about the certainty of my position.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm an agnostic, veering towards agnostic atheism. It's an intellectual and philosophical choice for me.
I find this baffling, as agnosticism seems like an almost indefensible philosophical choice. Are you defining it differently?
I'm using the official definition(s). Of course there are several slightly different official definitions, as any dictionary will tell you. Agnosticism is perfectly sound intellectually and philosophically - In fact it would be easy to argue that it's more watertight logically than either theism or atheism.
Wikipedia offers a good view into different modern definitions of agnosticism:
quote:Agnosticism: the stance that it's impossible to know with certainty whether or not a deity exists.
For many people agnostic means (or is understood to mean) "undecided". The word has become pretty useless for determining someone's actual philosophical position.
quote:official definition
(good-natured giggle emoticon)
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
[QUOTE]official definition
(good-natured giggle emoticon)
Granted, I was editing my post while you quoted me, but then again my post already had this rather self-explanatory sentence:
Thanks, though I can't take credit for the underlying idea. It comes from perhaps my favorite quote on the subject (which I'm sure you've all seen):
quote:"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts
I personally hate arguing about the atheist / agnostic terms. I tend to agree with those that are firm that atheism means "lacking a belief in any diety". Any other garbage you want to bring about "believing in the non-existence of God (therefor faith!)" or whatever isn't part of the definition. I wish those that used it in this way would at least qualify it with "strong atheism" or "positive atheism". I don't like those terms much either, but at least they don't corrupt the word we have to act as the opposite of theism.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE] 2) The term "agnostic" is regularly misused to refer to people who aren't confident of the non-existence of God. That is not what the word means. If you do not believe that a god exists, even if you aren't certain that no god exists, you are an atheist. If you are calling yourself an agnostic because you don't think you're arrogant enough to call yourself atheist, you don't actually know what those words mean.
This is the reason why I find agnosticism to be logically untenable. To have a belief in some God is a proposition--"God exists"--which is either true or false. If you believe in a God, you hold that proposition to be true. If you don't believe in a God, you hold that proposition to be false. When a person makes the claim that God may or may not exist, but we can't know whether a God exists does not actually address the issue. Agnosticism isn't a matter of faith, it is a claim about our limited epistemology. Put simply, if you believe that we can't know if a God exists, then it is likely you don't believe in a God. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a God. That doesn't mean I believe there couldn't be a God, nor does it mean I think it's impossible for us to know if there is a God. It just means I don't believe in one. If you claim yourself as an agnostic, ask yourself which God you believe in. If you say there isn't a particular God you believe in, then by definition you're an atheist. Your agnosticism is a different matter entirely from your faith.
As for the larger subject at hand, I've never really taken my atheism to be a part of my identity. It matters to me no more than the fact I have a nose, fingers, or wear clothes. I'm an atheist, there's no more to it for me than that. As such, I wouldn't attend an atheist social group, but I can understand why others might. In some areas, being an atheist is so stigmatized I get why people would want to have a place where they are not subject to social criticism for their lack of faith. The meetings aren't about not believing in God, they're about finding others who share a common trait with you.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm not sure I've ever based my theism on making a list of all gods ever imagined, eliminating the ones I didn't believe in, ending up with a positive number of gods I still believed in, and thus calling myself a theist.
if (the gods possible to believe in) - (the gods I don't believe in) > 0, then I am a theist. if (the gods possible to believe in) - (the gods I don't believe in) = 0, then I am an atheist.
My theism isn't measured on a scale of how many gods I accept. I don't know who Stephen Roberts is attempting to talk to. I either believe that there is room and need for a god in the universe, or I don't. If I dismiss other gods beside my own, that doesn't put me a checkmark away from being an atheist. Setting up a checklist and checking off the gods is, IMO, an exercise that presupposes you are atheist already.
ETA: math.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't know who Stephen Roberts is attempting to talk to.
I think he's trying to find a way to relate the experience of atheism to people who are not atheists. Many theists seem to profoundly misunderstand what it means to be an atheist. They see it as an active endeavor, an "extreme" belief, or otherwise an extraordinary state of being. By expressing what I don't believe in in terms of what you don't believe in, I'm attempting to get you to understand how my position is much less weird and foreign than you might otherwise presume.
You don't believe in Zeus - why not? What has convinced you that Zeus doesn't exist? What about Vishnu? Mithra? etc. OK, now that you've considered that, imagine a person that answers those questions in a similar way when it comes to the god that you believe in.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: By expressing what I don't believe in in terms of what you don't believe in
This is hand-wavy nonsense. It merely proves that many atheists profoundly misunderstand what it means to be a theist.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Matt: I do appreciate the attempt to put it in a theist's terms and I see what he's trying to describe.
One difference might be that I don't believe in Zeus for different reasons than Stephen Roberts doesn't believe in Zeus, at least according to what Roberts is attempting to describe.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It merely proves that many atheists profoundly misunderstand what it means to be a theist.
That could very well be the case. The only obvious difference between a theist and atheist is that the theist has a god belief and the atheist does not. On the other side of that coin, there is an obvious, seemingly relevant, shared experience of *not* believing in gods that are excluded by the god belief of the theist.
It seems like acknowledging that, assuming it's not controversial (is it?), could at least be a candidate for the beginning of a discussion. I'm willing to grant that it might seem nonsensical to some theists, but the hand-wavy part seems a bit dismissive given that I know at least a handful of atheists that were once theists who are fond of the expression - they think it is informative.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:One difference might be that I don't believe in Zeus for different reasons than Stephen Roberts doesn't believe in Zeus, at least according to what Roberts is attempting to describe.
That may not be a valid assumption. It would have to be born out by further discussion, but many people's explanations for why they do believe in God (generally Christian for me) apply directly to the quote. For instance, with many LDS folks personal revelation and spiritual experiences are a primary reason they believe and, by extension, the lack of these experiences in relation to other deities are why they disbelieve. Thus my lack of such experiences applies to my disbelief in both the LDS God and other gods.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE] 2) The term "agnostic" is regularly misused to refer to people who aren't confident of the non-existence of God. That is not what the word means. If you do not believe that a god exists, even if you aren't certain that no god exists, you are an atheist. If you are calling yourself an agnostic because you don't think you're arrogant enough to call yourself atheist, you don't actually know what those words mean.
This is the reason why I find agnosticism to be logically untenable. To have a belief in some God is a proposition--"God exists"--which is either true or false. If you believe in a God, you hold that proposition to be true. If you don't believe in a God, you hold that proposition to be false. When a person makes the claim that God may or may not exist, but we can't know whether a God exists does not actually address the issue. Agnosticism isn't a matter of faith, it is a claim about our limited epistemology. Put simply, if you believe that we can't know if a God exists, then it is likely you don't believe in a God. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a God. That doesn't mean I believe there couldn't be a God, nor does it mean I think it's impossible for us to know if there is a God. It just means I don't believe in one. If you claim yourself as an agnostic, ask yourself which God you believe in. If you say there isn't a particular God you believe in, then by definition you're an atheist. Your agnosticism is a different matter entirely from your faith.
Many agnostics actually do have faith in theists. Agnosticism has sub-categories, such as agnostic atheists. They do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility. Agnostic theists on the other hand believe a deity exists but do not claim the deity's existence to be true.
Yes, agnosticism is in a way different matter from your faith. Which is the point. It's usually an intellectual conclusion that either theists or atheist arrive to. It's a conclusion based on logic instead of faith. Which is why it sounds strange to argue that it's "logically untenable".
Do you have definitive knowledge of whether deities exist, or not? You don't. You have *faith* that they either exist, or not. Why is their non-existence also a question of faith? Because you replace the faith in deities with a faith in something else. Like science, for example.
But science might not be real. You just have faith it is. Scientists might not be real either, you just believe in their existence. In fact the computer you are watching might not be real. Your senses might be lying to you. You might not even have senses, or body. Your brain is just fooling you. You might not have a brain either, there is just a mind somewhere thinking thoughts. In fact there might not even be a mind, all you know is that there are thoughts, but not necessarily a mind thinking them.
"There are thoughts". That's all you actually know. Anything beyond that it a question of faith.
This kind of basic philosophy might not have much practical use in life, but it's logical. We prefer to choose faith over our fundamental lack of knowledge. Faith is the motor that keeps us running.
And yes, I believe in science. I don't believe in theists. But I fully admit that those beliefs are matters of faith, and it would be logically untenable for me to claim with absolute certainty that science is real, or that theist are not real.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I guess it's also worth pointing out, that judging by our current understanding of the possibilities of science... At some point in the future it might be possible to artificially create beings, who are in every meaning of the word deities.
Who is to say this has not already happened at some point, in some other (alien) civilization? Maybe one or more of the deities they created, are the deities we humans are familiar with. While we obviously have no information of this, it's scientifically perfectly plausible scenario.
We are already ourselves capable of much more impressive things than the majority of our past deities.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I don't mean that agnosticism is untenable as an answer to epistemological questions of God's existence. If someone asks if you believe we can know if God exists, to say you're an agnostic is fine. But when someone asks "what's your religion?" or "do you believe in God?" agnosticism does not answer the question. If you think saying you're agnostic answers the question, "do you believe in God?" you need to ask which God, if any, you believe in. If there is no God you believe in, you're an atheist. Saying that we can't know if a God exists can be a reason why you don't believe in a God, but it is not the answer to the question.
[ March 20, 2012, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: At some point in the future it might be possible to artificially create beings, who are in every meaning of the word deities.
Except for the meaning of the word that includes "uncreated" as central to said meaning. Which would be the meaning accepted by Christianity and Judaism for most of their history.
Edit: "being" is a little tricky too.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Matt: I'll have to write more tomorrow, but my initial response is that while I do believe in God chiefly through personal experience (as an adult, not just depending on what I was taught as a kid any longer), that's not necessarily how I disprove the existence of another god. I know gods can be pure human constructs as well. I also tend to look for similarities between my view of God and that of people of other faiths, with the belief that there is a pattern underlying it all, that people look to deity for a reason and that the universe can indeed have room for a supreme being. Like I said before, it's not just a matter of applying the same test to each god and eliminating them when they don't respond until I either end up with one god or no god. The gulf between one and zero has to be defined differently than that. As the acceptance of the possibility of a god or not. The crux, I think, can be found in a Book of Mormon passage, Alma 32:27: "...yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe..." You desire it or you don't. I don't see it as a matter of believing in one fewer god than a Jew or Christian. That's not a good characterization of why I believe as I do. I can see an atheist being happy with it perhaps because it seems to characterize the average atheist as just an ordinary joe who happens to not believe in any god, no big deal. don't know if that all is worth anything. I'll think it through more. Perhaps even change my mind.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: the hand-wavy part seems a bit dismissive given that I know at least a handful of atheists that were once theists who are fond of the expression - they think it is informative.
IME, the atheists who were once theists who like this explanation were mostly of the "default theist" variety. That is, they were theists primarily because they grew up with it. Not because they had made a considered, adult choice of their theism.
It makes sense to me that that sort of "convert" to atheism would agree with the description.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: I don't mean that agnosticism is untenable as an answer to epistemological questions of God's existence. If someone asks if you believe we can know if God exists, to say you're an agnostic is fine. But when someone asks "what's your religion?" or "do you believe in God?" agnosticism does not answer the question. If you think saying you're agnostic answers the question, "do you believe in God?" you need to ask which God, if any, you believe in. If there is no God you believe in, you're an atheist. Saying that we can't know if a God exists can be a reason why you don't believe in a God, but it is not the answer to the question.
....Which is why there are more subcategories: Agnostic atheism and atheist agnosticism. Both terms have been widely used for a long time. I identified myself as an agnostic atheist 20 years ago.
Moreover, some people don't have strong faith either way. This is anecdotal evidence - which is enough in this case - but I know people who sometimes believe in God, and sometimes not. I was like that myself once. It's usually a transitional period towards either theism or atheism, but it still exist. For some people it's a permanent state of faith. You could claim that such people are one moment theists, the other moment atheists, for years on. But it's simpler to call them just agnostics, if they identify themselves as ones.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: At some point in the future it might be possible to artificially create beings, who are in every meaning of the word deities.
Except for the meaning of the word that includes "uncreated" as central to said meaning. Which would be the meaning accepted by Christianity and Judaism for most of their history.
Edit: "being" is a little tricky too.
In many religions a lot of deities have been created by other deities. "Uncreated" isn't really a part of the official definition. I don't see why we should consider only Christianity and Judaism in here.
But even then, a lot of christians consider Jesus a deity - They even pray for him. They also believe God created Jesus. This might not be how church sees it, but that's how many common believers interpret it.
"Uncreated" is really just another way of saying that we are not aware of the potential creator of the "uncreated". An artificially created deity would seem uncreated, it people would be unaware of its creator, and it would claim to be uncreated.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But it's simpler to call them just agnostics, if they identify themselves as ones.
It's simpler, but I maintain that it's incorrect. They're just wishy-washy, not agnostic.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: They also believe God created Jesus. This might not be how church sees it, but that's how many common believers interpret it.
So, those common believers who profess belief in the Nicene Creed (that would be pretty much everyone but the reconstructionist denominations, btw) interpret the words "begotten, not created" to mean "created"? I agree that lots of "common" believers aren't up on the finer points of theology, but that seems like a pretty egregious lapse of reading comprehension. Hearing too, for those who recite it in Mass/Service every week.
Edit to add, because the lack of theological education in nominal believers really isn't the point. The reason the words "not created" were included in the creed in the first place was because it is central to the definition of divinity for monotheistic religions. If Jesus were a created being, then he would not be God. Therefore there were huge arguments about the matter -- which even the "common believers" participated in -- with the 4th century equivalent of bumper sticker slogans.
[ March 21, 2012, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:those common believers who profess belief in the Nicene Creed (that would be pretty much everyone but the reconstructionist denominations, btw) interpret the words "begotten, not created" to mean "created"?
I think you give "common believers" too much credit when you assume that they're interpreting the words of the Nicene Creed at all.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
If a significant number of church-going folks can recite the words "not created" and fail to realize that they mean "not created" I shall despair.
You're probably right, though.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: If a significant number of church-going folks can recite the words "not created" and fail to realize that they mean "not created" I shall despair.
You're probably right, though.
When I was a Catholic, the words we recited were 'begotten, not made'. Of course, when I thought of the word 'begotten' I merely thought it meant 'created in some specific way' as opposed to 'not created'.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
*despairs*
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I went to Catholic mass several times, remember reciting "Begotten, not made" and never paid any attention to what it was supposed to mean. (I was not actually Catholic, but I'm sure there were plenty of real Catholics reciting it the same way I was)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I consider myself a Humanist in the Isaac Asimov 'Space is the future' sort of fashion.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And here I thought the Nicene Creed verged on overkill on the anti-Arianism. I guess they should have left the anathamas in.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: They also believe God created Jesus. This might not be how church sees it, but that's how many common believers interpret it.
So, those common believers who profess belief in the Nicene Creed (that would be pretty much everyone but the reconstructionist denominations, btw) interpret the words "begotten, not created" to mean "created"? I agree that lots of "common" believers aren't up on the finer points of theology, but that seems like a pretty egregious lapse of reading comprehension. Hearing too, for those who recite it in Mass/Service every week.
Edit to add, because the lack of theological education in nominal believers really isn't the point. The reason the words "not created" were included in the creed in the first place was because it is central to the definition of divinity for monotheistic religions. If Jesus were a created being, then he would not be God. Therefore there were huge arguments about the matter -- which even the "common believers" participated in -- with the 4th century equivalent of bumper sticker slogans.
Beating a dead horse here, as others already commented on this. But a really, really big percentage of christians don't really know what reads in the Bible, or what exactly is said at the church.
Here in the strongly Christian, strongly secular and strongly liberal Finland, I would say that at least 80% of Christians have never Bible, expect for the the few dozen pages that was required at school. And they haven't visited church except for Christmas mass once a year, back when they were still in school. And in funerals and weddings.
In all honesty, I never paid any attention to what the priest said.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But it's simpler to call them just agnostics, if they identify themselves as ones.
It's simpler, but I maintain that it's incorrect. They're just wishy-washy, not agnostic.
It's not incorrect. It fits the official definitions of the word.
A lot of people have different belief systems than you. Using derogatory terms to label them doesn't show good taste.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A lot of people have different belief systems than you. Using derogatory terms to label them doesn't show good taste.
Waffling between two different belief systems, as you've described, is not a belief system. It is waffling.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And here I thought the Nicene Creed verged on overkill on the anti-Arianism. I guess they should have left the anathamas in.
We teach it in RCIA. I can personally vouch that at least 120 or so Catholics get it. Does that help?
At the very least, "in every meaning of the word deities" should be well and truly exploded. Tuukka, having super powers does not make one God.
I believe in Zeus the same way I believe in Jehovah. Names we call God. I think the folks who call God Jehovah get more of it right than the Zeus folks, but none of us has the whole picture.
Whether or not atheism can be considered extreme, the actions of atheists can be just as extreme as those of any religion. I find evangelical atheists to be approximately as obnoxious as I find evangelical Christians.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:A lot of people have different belief systems than you. Using derogatory terms to label them doesn't show good taste.
Waffling between two different belief systems, as you've described, is not a belief system. It is waffling.
You have a failure in your conceptual thinking. There is a THIRD belief system between the two you are familiar with. For some reason you can't grasp the existence of that third belief system. But it still exists.
You are in essence trying to argue that the color grey doesn't exist, because you can see only black and white.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: [QUOTE]Originally posted by dkw: [qb] At the very least, "in every meaning of the word deities" should be well and truly exploded. Tuukka, having super powers does not make one God.
I believe in Zeus the same way I believe in Jehovah. Names we call God. I think the folks who call God Jehovah get more of it right than the Zeus folks, but none of us has the whole picture.
I would say that many of the gods in greek mythology were essentially superheroes. Most of them were not "uncreated", but directly created by other gods.
Zeus himself was born in a childbirth just like humans, he was a child of Cronus and Rhea. They all looked like humans, gave birth like humans, and went through adolescence like humans. Zeus himself had many children, who became gods.
The Greek gods could even be killed, which is what happened to Asclepius and Pan.
Of course when I talked about artificially created deities, I was thinking of something much more powerful than Spiderman.
[ March 21, 2012, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tuukka, I did not make myself clear. Throughout history, people have tried to understand and be in relationship with the divine. We call it different names and assign it different attributes. Zeus and his particular collection of attributes is one attempt.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Tuukka, I did not make myself clear. Throughout history, people have tried to understand and be in relationship with the divine. We call it different names and assign it different attributes. Zeus and his particular collection of attributes is one attempt.
I'm not sure what you were disagreeing with me about, then?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You seem to think that some Zeus-like creature would be God.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is a THIRD belief system between the two you are familiar with.
There are even more than that! But agnosticism -- as defined as being "not really sure that there is or isn't a god" -- is not one of them. It's just indecisiveness.
You're trying to say that when you ask someone what his favorite chain restaurant is, if he can't decide between -- say -- Perkins and Applebees, that there is actually a third restaurant called Not Able To Decide On a Favorite Restaurant. Which is ludicrous.
If you simply aren't certain whether there is or is not a god, you're simply an indecisive atheist or a doubtful theist. You aren't some third category of being. You're only an agnostic if for some reason you think it's actually impossible (or merely completely pointless) to establish the existence of a god, which is a viable but incredibly stupid philosophical position.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The gods of most mythologies including greek were omnicisient. Taking the Zorostrian monolithic conceptualization of deities and trying to draw a line between polytheistic and monotheistic and saying they are incomparable isn't theologically or philosophically useful. A polytheistic setting is still conceptually "god" for the people at the time, the supernatural and divine divided up into many competing parts to form the system of belief and explaination and myth.
Zeus is thus just as much god as jesus or the demiurge is god if you are to attempt to compare two starkly different if not dissimilar systems.
If however the argument is "The Judeo-Muslim-Christian God existed back then as Zeus because that's what people called him at that time/region" is just plain silly and wrong.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
There's a lot of prescriptive discussion going on in this thread: "people are like this" or "people should be like this".
I think that's a bit of a dangerous game to play, whether you're talking about atheists, people who go to bars or people who are in their twenties.
Clearly, it's difficult to assign one meaning to one word and leave it at that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
shocker.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Jaffa, kree
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Tom why is it ludicrous? An Atheist is sure. A theist is sure. An agnostic wants more evidence before he decides either way.
You can call it indecisive if you want, but to someone who identifies with that label, maybe it means that god is not a big part of his life. Maybe he feels that there is a higher power but cannot prove it, and doesn't know what to do with that feeling.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I spent 5 years being very decidedly agnostic. I was commited to examining the issue, and knew I hadn't examined it enough yet to have an informed opinion.
I eventually identified as an atheist, when it became clear that for all intents and purposes, I was going to spend the rest of my life acting as if there were no God. I don't need 100% certainty to make a decision.
I think most agnostics are, for most intents and purposes, either a theist or an atheist.
However, the reason I made a choice to change my label was because I cared. I think it is a perfectly defensible position to say "I haven't examined this issue enough to have an informed opinion, and I will never care to."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I find other atheists pretty much as dreary as I find the rest of humanity.
Ok, so I have one thing in common with them.. just like I have one thing in common with fiscal conservatives, lesbians, bisexuals, and computer gamers.
When that topic is used up, all the things we don't have in common come out.
And honestly "I don't believe in god." "Me neither!" goes by pretty quickly.
SF/Fantasy geeks are much better to have one thing in common with. We can talk that stuff for hours.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I guess you've never heard of Humanism... It's kinda like Applied Atheism. Even has the added alliteritive appeal in it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But agnosticism -- as defined as being "not really sure that there is or isn't a god" -- is not one of them. It's just indecisiveness.
Agnosticism defined in its much more typical and useful form, however, is not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It is worth noting that that form of agnosticism was specifically ruled out in favor of waffling back and forth, though, for the purposes of this conversation -- and not by me.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I find other atheists pretty much as dreary as I find the rest of humanity.
Ok, so I have one thing in common with them.. just like I have one thing in common with fiscal conservatives, lesbians, bisexuals, and computer gamers.
When that topic is used up, all the things we don't have in common come out.
And honestly "I don't believe in god." "Me neither!" goes by pretty quickly.
SF/Fantasy geeks are much better to have one thing in common with. We can talk that stuff for hours.
Pix, I mentioned this to you once before, but we have every one of those things in common.
And I agree, atheism seems low on the list of common beliefs that are likely to lead to an actual friendship.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh, I take it back. I guess I'm not a lesbian.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I personally don't understand how one can define theists as being 'sure' there's a god, and atheists as being 'not sure'. My a priori assumption is that the existence of any god worth believing in CANNOT be proven, by any reasonable standard of proof. By the same token, neither can the existence of any god of this type be DISproven, by that same standard.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's interesting to me, since I personally feel that one of the prerequisites of a god worth believing in is that its existence COULD be proven to some reasonable standard.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Indeed, I'ld be grovy with gods who could physically manifest themselves and have epic battles with other gods.
On the other hand if God then Aliens and we'ld have to accept the existence monsters, cosmic horrors, ogres, trolls and Richard Simmons.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I personally don't understand how one can define theists as being 'sure' there's a god, and atheists as being 'not sure'. My a priori assumption is that the existence of any god worth believing in CANNOT be proven, by any reasonable standard of proof. By the same token, neither can the existence of any god of this type be DISproven, by that same standard.
Yes but that's true of anything. And so the word "sure" is a term of convenience both in this conversation and in real life.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Actually, no. I was very specific with my word choice. The phrase 'by a reasonable standard of proof' deals with your objection pre-emptively.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That's interesting to me, since I personally feel that one of the prerequisites of a god worth believing in is that its existence COULD be proven to some reasonable standard.
Which is why, if I'm not mistaken, you don't think there are any gods worth believing in, yes?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Thought about doing this in its own thread, but it's pretty relevant here.
From what I can tell, there are existing humanist websites that attempt to promote "humanist art and culture," but none that do so in a very inspiring way. (Feel free to provide counter-examples if I just haven't looked hard enough)
I recently acquired "humanistculture.com," printed out some business cards, and am working on a splash page to have up before the Reason Rally this Saturday.
What I want is for there to be a central website that explains not just what humanism is, but does so in an evocative, inspiring way. And act as a hub for sharing art, music, community-building events, and in general help facilitate the sort of thing advocated in the "Atheism 2.0" TED talk.
That's a lot of work, and I'm not sure I'm qualified to do it. I'm not sure if my goal is to recruit people for my own project, or convince someone with an existing website (secularhumanism.org?) to do a massive rebranding, possibly bringing me on as collaborator.
In any case, here is the current mockup of my splash page. I'm not really happy with it yet (it has some obvious problems), but am looking for feedback.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Don't know if this is the right place to ask my question, but here it goes to all of you who know a lot about philosophy:
Can you map groups/religions to the following beliefs?:
1) God does not exist 2) God does exist, but God is not the creator of the universe, it's the other way around: Human beings created God. 3) There must be some God who created the universe, but God's existence is completely irrelevant to us, because we cannot know God and we cannot have any relationship with God 4) God exists and has made himself known via his prophets and his word. 5) God exists and we can have a personal relationship with him.
It would help me a lot if I knew which religion believes what.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I remember when we used to have this discussion a lot. I am not nostalgic.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I feel like I should apologize, not that anyone has ever showed the ability to control a discussion on the internet let alone here but this was not my intention.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dan: That's cuz you're awesome and if I weren't a charisma-less, agoraphobic misanthrope I'd say we should hang.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinetteB: Don't know if this is the right place to ask my question, but here it goes to all of you who know a lot about philosophy:
Can you map groups/religions to the following beliefs?:
You can, but it wouldn't be particularly useful. Those categories aren't going to get at the actual differences within families of religions and you've left out non-monotheistic options altogether.
If you want to discuss it, feel free to make a new thread, since it really is outside even a loose interpretation of this one.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Actually, no. I was very specific with my word choice. The phrase 'by a reasonable standard of proof' deals with your objection pre-emptively.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That's interesting to me, since I personally feel that one of the prerequisites of a god worth believing in is that its existence COULD be proven to some reasonable standard.
Which is why, if I'm not mistaken, you don't think there are any gods worth believing in, yes?
And who is the arbiter of "reasonable standard of proof?" I've presented evidence for the truth of my religion that was compelling only to some. Atheists on this forum have presented their philosophies that were not compelling to me or to others. Others on this forum have suggested that their emotional convictions are as reasonable as any other claims.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've presented evidence for the truth of my religion that was compelling only to some.
I'm actually curious: has that evidence been compelling to anyone not born a Jew, in your personal experience?
quote:Atheists on this forum have presented their philosophies that were not compelling to me or to others. Others on this forum have suggested that their emotional convictions are as reasonable as any other claims.
Yeah, but those people are silly. A philosophy does not need to be compelling to be true. A proof, however, needs to be compelling to be believed.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Tom, you miss my question?
-----------
Armoth: there are pretty cut and dried standards of proof in both science and law.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Tom: Yes. It has been very compelling to many Christians.
El JT: I'm a law student. Trust me. There are not. And any philosopher will tell you that even in Science, the standards are all based on a ton of assumptions.
I think that's what's really interesting about discussions about God. You can imagine a whole list of untrue assumptions and develop math and science that works according to those hard and fast rules - but the assumptions are a prerequisite.
People are so comfortable with the black and white rules of science that they presume that the black and white must extend to the origins of those systems - but they never do.
And law is almost never black and white.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The last person in the world I'd trust is a religious law student trying to convince me the notions of proof we use to send people to prison is NOT sufficient to prove the existence of god. If such proof could be produced, which of course it couldn't.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: The last person in the world I'd trust is a religious law student trying to convince me the notions of proof we use to send people to prison is NOT sufficient to prove the existence of god. If such proof could be produced, which of course it couldn't.
Really? Less than the crazed lunatic? Also, the proofs we use to send people to jail would never be sufficient for proving God's existence/none existence unless we assume God either is unable to stop us from finding him that way, or allows it.
A God who either does not wish to found that way and is capable of maintaining that state of affairs, or by nature does not leave evidence that can be identified in that way won't be found. We are still basing it on assumptions, just as I assume the God I speak to and who speaks back is not actually a trickster God who is misusing me.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
A god who carefully structures his existence in such a way as to leave no discernible impact on the world is functionally identical to a hallucination that compels a person to be nice to others, or whatever other religious beliefs you choose.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: A god who carefully structures his existence in such a way as to leave no discernible impact on the world is functionally identical to a hallucination that compels a person to be nice to others, or whatever other religious beliefs you choose.
No discernible impact that can be logically traced back to him even by unbelievers. There is a discernible impact of his existence those who are diligently seeking him can identify.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
quote:You can, but it wouldn't be particularly useful. Those categories aren't going to get at the actual differences within families of religions and you've left out non-monotheistic options altogether.
If you want to discuss it, feel free to make a new thread, since it really is outside even a loose interpretation of this one.
Urhm....to start with the last: Are you sure you know what the discussion in this thread is about?
Of course I am not interested in differences in families of religion, just don't get this 'exists/does not exist' thing here in this discussion, because it's completely irrelevant without a proper definition of 'existence'.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
How do you define "existence" Ginette?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
JT: Yes to both.
Armoth: I submit that if they found it compelling, they would not be Christians. Clearly they do NOT believe that the event as described happened exactly as described.
BB: I don't think Armoth would be able to identify the same discernable impacts you do. Does that mean he's not diligently seeking God?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: No discernible impact that can be logically traced back to him even by unbelievers. There is a discernible impact of his existence those who are diligently seeking him can identify.
I can see how you can massage the definition of 'discernable'. Perhaps a more accurate word would be 'tangible'. As 'believers' aren't in possession of any extra senses that 'unbelievers' don't also have, there is no evidence of god available to them outside the confines of their own mind. By your own admission, this could easily be the intention of god. But it doesn't change my point: that such a god is indistinguishable from a hallucination, to those outside the hallucination.
This doesn't make the presence of that god any less 'real' to those who experience it, of course. But it also does not, will not, cannot, meet any reasonable standard for proof. Which was my original point. The flip side to that, again, is that it is equally impossible to DISprove such a god. Which seems to me to be perfectly fair.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
A hallucination isn't necessary. A biased interpretative framework suffices for many.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
BB: I don't think Armoth would be able to identify the same discernable impacts you do. Does that mean he's not diligently seeking God?
Are you so sure they'd be so different for the two of us? In any case even if they were not, I do not limit God to what I have personally experienced. God is quite capable of communicating through myriad devices and means.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
I don't think it's relevant how I define existence Strider. If you take the definition 'all that is' then you mean everything that at some point 'is' in this world. Which means it has to have a place in this world. So this definition implies that God does not exist. If you take the definition 'all we are aware of through our senses and that persists indepently without them' it also implies that God does not exist. So where can you find a definition of 'existence' that makes a discussion whether God exists or not meaningful? The point is, you have to make up a definition of 'existence' with room for things that 'are not' and that 'we cannot be aware of with our senses' and in doing so you make Gods 'existence' a possibility. So my question is: give me a definition of 'existence' that makes God possible. And if you want my personal definition then I can only come up with this one:
God is existence.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinetteB:
quote:You can, but it wouldn't be particularly useful. Those categories aren't going to get at the actual differences within families of religions and you've left out non-monotheistic options altogether.
If you want to discuss it, feel free to make a new thread, since it really is outside even a loose interpretation of this one.
Urhm....to start with the last: Are you sure you know what the discussion in this thread is about?
Of course I am not interested in differences in families of religion, just don't get this 'exists/does not exist' thing here in this discussion, because it's completely irrelevant without a proper definition of 'existence'.
The reason I brought it up is because it's a part of the proposition which creates the distinction between atheism and theism.
Take the proposition: "God exists." It can be either true or false. The definitions of both "God" and "exist" are important for determining whether you believe the proposition is true. But regardless of how you define the terms, the proposition is either true or false.
A theist is a person who believes the proposition is true. An atheist is a person who lacks the belief that the proposition is true. It doesn't matter whether the proposition is true as a point of fact. A person is defined as a theist or an atheist based upon if the person believes the proposition is true.
When it is claimed that it is impossible to know whether the proposition is true or false, that claim refers to whether it is possible to prove our beliefs. It is not, in itself, a belief in the proposition being true. It is a description of what is necessary for our beliefs to be true. I agree with Tom that it's silly to claim it is impossible to prove the proposition, and this is the topic the debate has shifted to.
But to rehash my point (which we can now all ignore as most have moved on), agnosticism is the claim that is impossible to prove either way the truth of the proposition. When people ask the question, "Do you believe in God?" They are asking whether you believe the proposition "God exists" is true. To say that you're an agnostic does not actually answer the question. Being an agnostic doesn't mean that you are undecided on what you believe, it's a claim that it's impossible to prove the proposition. The proposition being true and your belief in the truth of the proposition are two separate issues. It is entirely possible to believe in a proposition without believing it's possible to prove it true. You might even believe it's impossible to prove it true. In the case of the proposition "God exists," this person would be an agnostic theist. Likewise one can be an agnostic atheist.
The question was raised whether it is possible to simply be undecided in whether you believe the proposition is true. In other words, is "I don't know" a legitimate answer? There are people who go through life as believers, but come to have a "crisis in faith" where they are suddenly unsure whether they believe anymore. Likewise, there are nonbelievers who go through life and have an experience that makes them wonder whether there is a higher power. If you asked these people if they believe in God, it seems likely they would answer that they don't know. The objection contends that there should be a third category between atheist and theist that allows for these people--in other words, the binary division of atheist and theist is a false dichotomy on the spectrum of belief. I would answer that it is not a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible for people to "waffle" on their beliefs day-to-day, or even minute-by-minute. To say that a person is an atheist or a theist is descriptive of their current state. To say that someone is an atheist does not imply that he or she was always an atheist, nor does it entail that this person will always be an atheist. It is simply a description of whether, at the moment considered, they believe in the proposition.
But why not have a category for the undecided? Because to believe in the proposition requires a positive acceptance that the proposition is true. If you do not provide that acceptance of the proposition, you don't believe in it. This is why I say that if a person says "I don't know," ask them which God they believe in. If they say I don't know to any particular God, they don't believe in that God. To be a theist is to have a belief in the proposition being true. To be an atheist is to lack the belief that it is true. If you don't know if that God exists, then you lack the belief in the proposition that "God exists" is true.
Edit for clarity and to add: In short, to be a theist means you believe god exists. To be an atheist means you don't have that belief--a nonbeliever. It does NOT mean as a necessary condition that you believe that God doesn't exist. (Though there are certainly plenty of atheists who do.)
[ March 22, 2012, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinetteB: Can you map groups/religions to the following beliefs?:
1) God does not exist 2) God does exist, but God is not the creator of the universe, it's the other way around: Human beings created God. 3) There must be some God who created the universe, but God's existence is completely irrelevant to us, because we cannot know God and we cannot have any relationship with God 4) God exists and has made himself known via his prophets and his word. 5) God exists and we can have a personal relationship with him.
It would help me a lot if I knew which religion believes what.
Edit: making new thread titled "Addressing Ginette's Answers." Hope we can solicit some direct input once you get the ball rolling!
[ March 22, 2012, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
BB: I don't think Armoth would be able to identify the same discernable impacts you do. Does that mean he's not diligently seeking God?
Are you so sure they'd be so different for the two of us? In any case even if they were not, I do not limit God to what I have personally experienced. God is quite capable of communicating through myriad devices and means.
What happens when two alleged communications through these myriad devices to two different people result in exclusive and incompatible interpretations of a higher power between the two of them? Why do these 'discernable impacts,' no matter how genuinely sought, seem to correspond mostly only to what religion you were raised to believe in?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
BB: I don't think Armoth would be able to identify the same discernable impacts you do. Does that mean he's not diligently seeking God?
Are you so sure they'd be so different for the two of us? In any case even if they were not, I do not limit God to what I have personally experienced. God is quite capable of communicating through myriad devices and means.
What happens when two alleged communications through these myriad devices to two different people result in exclusive and incompatible interpretations of a higher power between the two of them? Why do these 'discernable impacts,' no matter how genuinely sought, seem to correspond mostly only to what religion you were raised to believe in?
They don't. Anybody who converts to a different religion can tell you that. Anybody who truly worships truth, can tell you that. As to God's will for the individual, ultimately it is to give unto them according to their desires. We are all at different levels of preparedness for truth. All I need concern myself with is am I living according to the truth as I understand it, and am I ready for more. That answer sadly is no at times. But fortunately it is also yes at others.
Armoth and I absolutely have different conceptions of what God's will is concerning us. I cannot judge what God has and has not said to him, nor can he do so for me. What we can do is interact, exchange ideas and experiences, and serve each other. In those efforts some of the truth I have found will be communicated to him, and vice versa. I can't very well say "refraining from bacon is not God's will" since I genuinely believe at one time, that was God's instruction to those who believed in him. And God apparently hasn't given Armoth the memo to chow down, or me to forbear. Getting hung up on those particulars is silly though. Ultimately if understanding God is a mountain, and we all start at the base of it, we are going to be miles apart when we commence climbing, but ultimately as we draw near to the top, the space between us also decreases.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Vadim and Ginnette, are you the same person? Or perhaps using the same computer and forgetting who's logged in?
If your only concern is to define God and existence why ask about prophets and Word and personal relationship? And if you're not concerned about differences between religions why try to map which ones believe what?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:They don't. Anybody who converts to a different religion can tell you that.
He did say "mostly."
So it's only coincidental that Utah is full of Mormons, Mexico of Catholics, and Norway of Lutherans?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Vadim and Ginnette, are you the same person? Or perhaps using the same computer and forgetting who's logged in?
If your only concern is to define God and existence why ask about prophets and Word and personal relationship? And if you're not concerned about differences between religions why try to map which ones believe what?
I'm different from Ginette. The only reason I stepped back in was because I saw Ginette was wondering what the point of "Exist/Not Exist" in the discussion. I tried to clear it up since I think I was the one who brought it up. It's entirely possible I did more harm than good for the discussion.
And for (hopefully) clarity, the question I was trying to answer is whether being "agnostic" makes sense as a logical alternative to theist/atheist. I wasn't even trying to come close to asking about prophets, mapping religions, the word of God, or any particular faith. Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:To be an atheist means you don't have that belief--a nonbeliever. It does NOT mean as a necessary condition that you believe that God doesn't exist.
I really do find this annoying. I consider my positive belief in the non-existence of God to be different in kind to someone's mere absence of belief. Why is it necessary to use the same word to describe both of us?
I put a lot of work to arrive at my answer; I consider the "absence of belief" people to be those who just stopped halfway. I'd rather not share a name with them.
quote:Ultimately if understanding God is a mountain, and we all start at the base of it, we are going to be miles apart when we commence climbing, but ultimately as we draw near to the top, the space between us also decreases.
So what is the top, then? If someone says the top is X, and you say the top is Y, does that mean neither of you have reached the top?
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Vadon: Mhy point is, that 'God exists' is not a valid proposition.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:They don't. Anybody who converts to a different religion can tell you that.
He did say "mostly."
So it's only coincidental that Utah is full of Mormons, Mexico of Catholics, and Norway of Lutherans?
I'm not sure what you are driving at. So many people won't go any further than to adhere to their culture's traditions regarding God, and not much further?
You've made what I'm sure you consider the important leap away from your society's mainstream belief in God. Your atheism may even be far more sophisticated and closer to the truth than some Utah Mormons, who are as I said above only going so far as to follow the traditions of their ancestors and society around them so as to fit in.
Do you think the majority of people attempt to live life completely outside the mold with which they were raised? Are self made millionaires very prominent as a total percentage of the population?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
If you are saying that a mormon and a jew are apart because they are on a path to a unifying peak, it implies that the peak is neither mormonism nor judaism. That is what is wrong with using the analogy to describe the situation. Either faith will disagree with where the peak is and who has to do the most walking, and both churches will be adamant about being the peak, essentially.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
And it completely disregards all of the polytheistic religions, as well.
The fact of the matter is that the bulk of the world's believers believe their god is the 'true' one, and that god is also fundamentally incompatible with the god most other religions believe in. So, whether there is ONE true god, MANY true gods, or NO true gods, one thing we can be certain of is that most of the people (both theists and atheists) don't have great odds for their beliefs being the one true one.
Atheists aren't bothered by this because, even though they are one belief out of many, their belief is the ONLY one that is backed up by legitimate, tangible proof.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: If you are saying that a mormon and a jew are apart because they are on a path to a unifying peak, it implies that the peak is neither mormonism nor judaism. That is what is wrong with using the analogy to describe the situation. Either faith will disagree with where the peak is and who has to do the most walking, and both churches will be adamant about being the peak, essentially.
I disagree with this. As I've said many times before, I've met many people before who are not Jews and yet I believe they are members of my religion.
My understanding of what God demands of us is an honest pursuit of truth. For many, the truth is that the greatest meaning in life is a relationship with Him, and thus the expectation is that effort, to the extent of ability, should be poured into reaching that goal. But for those whose intellectually honest pursuits do not lead to my God or any God at all, I consider them members of my religion as well as the only real moral value I subscribe to is an honest pursuit of truth or truths and the effort one must invest to reach live up to those truths.
From what I know of Mormon belief - it seems that for those who do not believe during their lifetime, they are given the opportunity to believe again in a new world where things will have been made more clear to them. If this is true and it turns out that I spent my life incorrectly, then of course I'd be a fool not to change my beliefs in whatever new world comes into being. But at least I can say that I spent this life in the pursuit of truth and in living up to those truths.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: The last person in the world I'd trust is a religious law student trying to convince me the notions of proof we use to send people to prison is NOT sufficient to prove the existence of god. If such proof could be produced, which of course it couldn't.
El JT, I can't blame you for your rash judgments of me. I'd only urge you to see what you can learn from getting to know me better and see if your opinions change.
Wow. Never been characterized as a "religious law student" - weird images that conjures up.
Doesn't it seem interesting that we use different standards of proofs for different things? To send someone to prison or to make them liable to someone else? What that implies is that these systems are imperfect and that each system has a bit of risk of reaching the incorrect conclusion. And that our society is comfortable with different levels of risk considering what is at stake.
Also consider that we use a jury of our peers to convict. And it is known that the fate of a person will vary (possibly even greatly) depending on the composition of that jury. Which again should demonstrate that our legal system may try to find the truth, but that it would be ridiculous to say that we always reach the correct result.
To me, and to BB and to many other intelligent, rational theists, their faith has been proven to them beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: JT: Yes to both.
Armoth: I submit that if they found it compelling, they would not be Christians. Clearly they do NOT believe that the event as described happened exactly as described.
BB: I don't think Armoth would be able to identify the same discernable impacts you do. Does that mean he's not diligently seeking God?
I disagree. Considering that Christians found their religion on Judaism, proving Judaism doesn't disprove Christianity.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
BB: I don't think Armoth would be able to identify the same discernable impacts you do. Does that mean he's not diligently seeking God?
Are you so sure they'd be so different for the two of us? In any case even if they were not, I do not limit God to what I have personally experienced. God is quite capable of communicating through myriad devices and means.
What happens when two alleged communications through these myriad devices to two different people result in exclusive and incompatible interpretations of a higher power between the two of them? Why do these 'discernable impacts,' no matter how genuinely sought, seem to correspond mostly only to what religion you were raised to believe in?
Making many assumptions but I'm sure BB and I overlap in many areas where we draw evidence for the existence of a higher power that creates and controls our lives. I'd assume that the evidence in which we overlap is also compelling to many other theists all over the world.
The evidence that God revealed Himself through a particular doctrine - that's probably where we disagree. Actually, BB probably agrees, to an extent with the evidence of revelation of Jewish doctrine, as will most Christians and Muslims - making around 2+ billion people believe that God, at least initially, revealed Himself to the world in through Jewish doctrine.
We just disagree about what happened next. Considering that I believe the evidence for "what happened next" is inferior to what happened first, I don't believe in Christianity and Islam. However, I'm open to being persuaded if someone wants to give me a reason to believe in the Koran, the NT or the Book of Mormon as an extension of the original evidence I have for the original revelation that we all believe in.
I'm also open to someone pointing out why the evidence I have for the original revelation is not compelling.
As for the point you raised about it being convenient that we believe in the religion we are born into - I can only say that I agree with you. Rocked my world when I realized that point in high school and I became severely uncomfortable with Judaism. And yet I also realized that the fact that the vast majority of ppl stay in the religion they were born into is just as much evidence that people are lazy truth-seekers as it is evidence that religion is silly.
So I resolved not to be a lazy-truth seeker. And I learned a lot about my religion. In the process, I realize that all the people I surrounded myself with and grew up with don't actually practice it - they practice ritual - and that was a terribly lonely discovery. But yea, that's where I'm at.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:They don't. Anybody who converts to a different religion can tell you that.
He did say "mostly."
So it's only coincidental that Utah is full of Mormons, Mexico of Catholics, and Norway of Lutherans?
As I said below this post, I believe that moral value can only be judged to the extent to which it is in a person's potential both to perceive and live up to truth.
So here are the possibilities:
1) Either 2 or all 3 of them are full of lazy truth-seekers and they are morally culpable.
or
2) It is not within their potential to reach the same truth that I have reached.
Personally, based on my understanding of my potential and my particular role in life - it doesn't matter to me whether it is 1 or 2. To the extent to which I get to know people well who are not in my religion, I meet people who I think fit into category 1, and people who I think fit into category 2. When I meet the latter, I love them and respect them and consider them as part of my religion even if they are not Jewish.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: If you are saying that a mormon and a jew are apart because they are on a path to a unifying peak, it implies that the peak is neither mormonism nor judaism. That is what is wrong with using the analogy to describe the situation. Either faith will disagree with where the peak is and who has to do the most walking, and both churches will be adamant about being the peak, essentially.
In my experience, most religions (even the "infallible" Catholics") believe that they are paths to the peak. Believing any religion to be a peak itself is a nasty trap people fall into.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: If you are saying that a mormon and a jew are apart because they are on a path to a unifying peak, it implies that the peak is neither mormonism nor judaism.
I'm comfortable not identifying the peak as Mormonism. I am also comfortable calling Mormonism a pathway up towards the peak. The religion instructs adherents to seek truth wherever they can find it, and so I look. The religion has also provided me with tools for discerning the truth, as well as a primer in some fundamental truths. The institution of Mormonism also provides opportunities for serving others. It's a fantastic package deal. So I adhere to it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'm comfortable not identifying the peak as Mormonism.
This may be quibbling a bit, but if the peak is not Mormonism, surely you believe that the Mormon Trail (the metaphorical one, not the real one) is the only one that gets you there and all of these other paths must at some point connect to it in order to reach the summit. Anything else would seem to go against all of that "one true church" stuff.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: The last person in the world I'd trust is a religious law student trying to convince me the notions of proof we use to send people to prison is NOT sufficient to prove the existence of god. If such proof could be produced, which of course it couldn't.
El JT, I can't blame you for your rash judgments of me. I'd only urge you to see what you can learn from getting to know me better and see if your opinions change.
That part was a joke. Of course, the part after it made it appear as though it was serious. So, that one's on me. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Matt, again not even Catholic belief that Catholicism - or even Christianity - is the only way to get there though theologically why that is gets a tad complicated.
quote: I'm also open to someone pointing out why the evidence I have for the original revelation is not compelling.
Forgive me, but I don't believe this. I've had this conversation with you.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Open to you pointing it out. Not open *to* it.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I'm also open to someone pointing out why the evidence I have for the original revelation is not compelling.
Forgive me, but I don't believe this. I've had this conversation with you.
You're saying because I don't agree that I'm not open to it?
Possible.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I'm comfortable not identifying the peak as Mormonism.
This may be quibbling a bit, but if the peak is not Mormonism, surely you believe that the Mormon Trail (the metaphorical one, not the real one) is the only one that gets you there and all of these other paths must at some point connect to it in order to reach the summit. Anything else would seem to go against all of that "one true church" stuff.
We do believe that we have all of the ordinances necessary to return to God again, as well as the proper authority to perform those ordinances. We believe we have been given the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In that way, yes, the way to the peak has to be through Mormonism (through what the church offers as far as ordinances, insofar as the authority to perform them only resides in this church). However, we don't believe that we are the only ones with the truth and the mechanisms to find it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: The evidence that God revealed Himself through a particular doctrine - that's probably where we disagree.
Assuming both of you understand your religions appropriately, that's definitely where you disagree. And it's not the only terminal disconnect that hammers the paths-up-the-mountain analogy to death. There are myriad points of mutually exclusive contradiction in your faiths where the other's faith must necessarily be wrong about what they consider to be absolute fact. In order for both of your paths to be aligned to the same peak, one or both of your religions has to be horribly, horribly wrong. Neither of your religions is going to think it is them.
While I'm sure one or both of you might try to creatively work around this fact, there's no getting around it. You are not looking at the same 'paths' or the same 'peak.' You are two religions that consider themselves the best mechanism and interpretation of a deity and their will.
Posted by I Used to Be a Drummer (Member # 12787) on :
I think we've all known a few people, religious or otherwise, who were just loving, good, virtuous, etc....basically, a "good person" by most generic definitions of the word. The kind of person who is open-hearted, and makes everyone around them feel loved and accepted. The kind of person people enjoy being around, because they don't make people feel judged or hated.
In my experience, you can find these people in every religion, from Buddhist to Hindu to Muslim, Christian, etc..
Funny how you don't see a lot of those people trying to bash other religions or belief systems.
Here's a good story, stolen from Tolstoy:
"An Orthodox bishop is on an inspection tour of his diocese. He hears of three pious monks living on an island in a lake and takes a boat to visit them. The monks turn out to have no knowledge at all of Scripture and doctrine. Patiently the bishop seeks to teach them, but finally he has to settle only for teaching them the Lord’s Prayer; they are too simple to learn anything more.
The bishop departs with some doubt over the genuineness of their faith. As his boat leaves the island for the mainland, in the distance he sees three figures moving towards him. As they come closer he sees that they are the three monks from the island, running across the water to catch him.
The monks climb into the boat and admit that they have already forgotten the Lord’s Prayer. The bishop falls on his face before them and says that they are holier men than he is, for they truly are in God. They need not concern themselves with such matters as creeds and doctrines, for they already know God directly.
The three monks return to their island, still running on the water, and the bishop goes his way, realizing that to be in God is more than any intellectual understanding of Him."
I like the fact that you could substitute almost any religion in the story, with few changes, and it would still work.
quote: Funny how you don't see a lot of those people trying to bash other religions or belief systems.
There may be a bit of selection bias in here, mind. For one thing, it's highly possible that you would exclude someone who bashes other belief systems from your mental category of "open-minded," even if in every other way he was a very open-minded person.
That said, it's certainly true that one can be a good person regardless of faith (if any), and moreover that it's more important to be a good person than to adhere to a specific faith. But, hey, the humanists aren't paying me to make the case for them, so I won't. Posted by I Used to Be a Drummer (Member # 12787) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Funny how you don't see a lot of those people trying to bash other religions or belief systems.
There may be a bit of selection bias in here, mind. For one thing, it's highly possible that you would exclude someone who bashes other belief systems from your mental category of "open-minded," even if in every other way he was a very open-minded person.
That said, it's certainly true that one can be a good person regardless of faith (if any), and moreover that it's more important to be a good person than to adhere to a specific faith. But, hey, the humanists aren't paying me to make the case for them, so I won't.
Actually, I'm not exactly saying that I think the essential quality I'm pointing at IS open-mindedness. Generally, making people NOT feel judged goes along with open-mindednes, but I'm really also pointing out simplicity and humility as parts of this unnamed virtue.
"The tao that can be named is not the tao..."
It's unnamed for a reason. Heh.
This reminds me of a passage from C.S. Lewis (heavily paraphrased) where he says that the most virtuous/Godly/etc. people, the ones that really get what spiritual lessons are about, usually don't talk about virtue/God/spirituality a lot. If pressed, they tend to put things very simply.
"It has no name. If forced to give it a name, I call it the Tao..."
Parts of the Bible are really quite Taoist, like Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.
I submit that anyone who gets freaked out by me pointing out THAT similarity is not exactly displaying the virtue I'm indirectly pointing out.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Armoth: The evidence that God revealed Himself through a particular doctrine - that's probably where we disagree. [/QUOTE/]
While I'm sure one or both of you might try to creatively work around this fact, there's no getting around it. You are not looking at the same 'paths' or the same 'peak.' You are two religions that consider themselves the best mechanism and interpretation of a deity and their will.
Seems like you just discounted everything I said. Okidoke.
Nope. Not being creative. Just saying it like it is. Not sure BB or Mormons see things the way I do AFR seems to be clear on that point, but definitely the Judaism I subscribe to sees it that way. And there is no denying that all Jews do not seek to convert and that many Jewish sources describe how people can fulfill their purpose through the following of the 7 Noahide commandments.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Seems like you just discounted everything I said. Okidoke.
No. You need to re-read my post. Your response isn't particularly relevant to it.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Seems like you just discounted everything I said. Okidoke.
No. You need to re-read my post. Your response isn't particularly relevant to it.
I've reread. You are smarter than I am. Would you be so kind as to point out the part I am getting wrong?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"the Judaism [you] subscribe to" does not have a shared peak with mormonism. Nothing about conversion practices or the noahide laws is a relevant counterpoint to that, nor does it present a case that the analogy works.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I don't see how this peak metaphor is meant to cash out.
For example, what can you say to a Christian who says there is a cross, and only a cross, at the top of the peak?
I can only think of three responses.
1) You are mistaken. There is more than just a cross at the peak. 2) You are presumptuous. How could you know what is at the peak? 3) Your perspective is limited. You may only see a cross, but others see what their tradition teaches them to see.
However, all three responses fail. Our hypothetical Christian can respond as follows:
1) There is only-a-cross at the peak. The cross I believe in is only-a-cross; If you claim there is a-cross-plus-others, then we are not speaking about the same cross. In other words, the cross is exclusive by definition. One of us is wrong; there cannot both be only-a-cross and a-cross-plus-others. 2) Your skepticism leaves the door open for me to be correct; it is not actually a argument against a cross-only peak. 3) You are using irrational mystery to cover over a contradiction. My God is a rational mystery, free of true contradiction.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In general I find it much easier to get along with people with similar political and religious (or lack thereof) belief as there seems to be a correlation in my social circles between being areligious/nonreligious and politically left leaning; people who are politically left leaning as such tend to be easier to get along with as there are many people who are politically right leaning that I've met on IRC and the like whose views are reprehensible.
A correlalery (sp?) to this being that left wing people can also have reprehensible views or otherwise be complete assholes but at least they aren't saying the only reason blacks vote democrat is because they are all on welfare or that white phosphorous should be used on OWS protesters. (This actually happened)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: "the Judaism [you] subscribe to" does not have a shared peak with mormonism. Nothing about conversion practices or the noahide laws is a relevant counterpoint to that, nor does it present a case that the analogy works.
That's BB's problem. The Mormonism that he subscribes to can share a peak with the Judaism that I subscribe to.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)