TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Roll Call: TOTA Atheist Thread
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 »

unfortunately this thread got so ridiculously out of control, with DJ_Elyot making all sort of claims and statments
(which flaws could be pointed out so easily), that i don't think anyone cares to reply anymore (including myself), everything and anything has been touched on the surface without making any constructive conclusions or yeilding any results.
also due to respect to jem_hader's initial idea of starting a roll call for athiests, i think the thread should stick to what it was meant for (i myself, am to blame for hijacking the thread and leading it to other subjects of discussion, which i apologize for).
if there's real and serious interest in the subjects discussed in this thread and if we're all focused on constructive discussions and debates, i would suggest taking one topic at a time and dealing with it until we get to some sort of conclusion, dealing with it in a seperate thread.
why not start with atheism and discuss that first, as it's the starting point, which most of the other topics discussed here (religion,homosexuality,moral values, modern science,etc) relate to.
if you agree, i'm defintely in for some idea sharing and serious discussions.
on a side note,no offense, but some people that regard themseleves as athiests/agnostics here, quite frankly don't even know much about atheism/agnostism , hence making contradictionary statments(fate, higher being,etc), much of it being due to the not-so-correct defenition that jem_hader made of atheist/agnostic. the definitions have apparently become more complicated nowadays (as my reserach showed) , that's why there's a lot of confusion here.
anyways that's my opinion, since i've spent 7-8 years of my life dealing/struggling with these issues, i don't take them lightly, maybe i'm wrong to think that everyone else should be serious about them too.

Times, they are a-changing

quote:

Originally posted by Espresso on a side note,no offense, but some people that regard themseleves as athiests/agnostics here, quite frankly don't even know much about atheism/agnostism , hence making contradictionary statments(fate, higher being,etc), much of it being due to the not-so-correct defenition that jem_hader made of atheist/agnostic. the definitions have apparently become more complicated nowadays (as my reserach showed) , that's why there's a lot of confusion here. anyways that's my opinion, since i've spent 7-8 years of my life dealing/struggling with these issues, i don't take them lightly, maybe i'm wrong to think that everyone else should be serious about them too.

Just so i know for myself, bc id like to know so i can evaluate it for myself, where do you feel i feel short in my definitions of atheists or agnostic. you must mean agnostics tho, since i didnt describe atheists in my post... and i would only describe them as ppl who do not beelieve in the existence of god

agnostics i would say are ppl who dont know if they believe there is a god or not. the reason they dont know i would say could primaryily be bc a) they feel it is impossible to know and hence they do not know or b) they have never given the topic any or enough thought to reach a conclusion for themselves.

i truly would like to konw where you think i slighlty missed the mark.

-jem-

EDIT: These are the definitions by Merriam-Webster:

Agnostic
Main Entry: 1ag�nos�tic
Pronunciation: ag-'n�s-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Atheist
Main Entry: athe�ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

quote:

Originally posted by Jem_hadar ...

Jem,
i didn't say your defintions of athiest/agnostic are wrong, but what i said is that they don't reflect the common definitions being used these days (modern age, because they have become more broader than the simple defintion that you used.you're referencing the dictionary, so did i when i refered to the word "spirtuality" or even the word "religion" , but the problem is that people refer to words without using their classical meaning anymore, making it more hectic and confusing.

for example: "The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals"ists," as he called them who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870."
whereas your(dictionary) defintion of the word only refers to "one who believes that there is no deity" which is partially true, but not a complete defintion. for a deatiled explanation see this very interesting article click

to see the modern defintion of athiesm check out
this

basically there are now four categories available in current dialogue:
1-Agnostic Theism: belief in a god without claiming to know for sure that the god exists.
2-Gnostic Theism: belief in a god while being certain that this god exists.
3-Agnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods without claiming to know for sure that none exist.
4-Gnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods while being certain that none (can or do) exist.
and note these are not my definitions or what i think is correct (i actually see an absolute contradiction in number 1), but what is used nowadays, hence the confusion that arrives when we start to discuss this subject.
hope that clarifies what i meant when i said not-so-correct, should have said not-so-correct-anymore!

quote:

Originally posted by Espresso to see the modern defintion of athiesm check out this basically there are now four categories available in current dialogue: 1-Agnostic Theism: belief in a god without claiming to know for sure that the god exists. 2-Gnostic Theism: belief in a god while being certain that this god exists. 3-Agnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods without claiming to know for sure that none exist. 4-Gnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods while being certain that none (can or do) exist. and note these are not my definitions or what i think is correct (i actually see an absolute contradiction in number 1), but what is used nowadays, hence the confusion that arrives when we start to discuss this subject. hope that clarifies what i meant when i said not-so-correct, should have said not-so-correct-anymore!

actually, in readings, i have run into material where the author referred to himself as an agnostic atheist.
actually, i like those terms, a little further clarification of where you stand. bc alot of ppl will tend to lean towards one side and operate on that basis while admitting they dont know for sure or not if its true...

id say i support the further classification like this, i think it better reflects the reality of many ppl.. but ill refrain from changing my grouping categories on the main page, for the sake of keeping it simple

Nice man... thanks for that information. -Jem-

quote:

Originally posted by Jem_hadar so are you saying you do NOT believe in god and wont until you have solid proof? (ie. your an atheist?) or are you saying you dont know if you think he exists or not? (ie. your an agnostic) just double checking, i gotta put ya in the right spot -jem-

agnostic

quote:

Originally posted by Espresso Jem, i didn't say your defintions of athiest/agnostic are wrong, but what i said is that they don't reflect the common definitions being used these days (modern age, because they have become more broader than the simple defintion that you used.you're referencing the dictionary, so did i when i refered to the word "spirtuality" or even the word "religion" , but the problem is that people refer to words without using their classical meaning anymore, making it more hectic and confusing. for example: "The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals"ists," as he called them who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870." whereas your(dictionary) defintion of the word only refers to "one who believes that there is no deity" which is partially true, but not a complete defintion. for a deatiled explanation see this very interesting article click to see the modern defintion of athiesm check out this basically there are now four categories available in current dialogue: 1-Agnostic Theism: belief in a god without claiming to know for sure that the god exists. 2-Gnostic Theism: belief in a god while being certain that this god exists. 3-Agnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods without claiming to know for sure that none exist. 4-Gnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods while being certain that none (can or do) exist. and note these are not my definitions or what i think is correct (i actually see an absolute contradiction in number 1), but what is used nowadays, hence the confusion that arrives when we start to discuss this subject. hope that clarifies what i meant when i said not-so-correct, should have said not-so-correct-anymore!

Interesting. I don't necessecarily think that #1 is a contradiction... it could be a belief for pragmatic reasons rather than actually logical belief in truth. eg: somebody believes in a god because doing so gives him a certain sense of pride, holiness, etc, despite having doubts that this god or gods actually exist.

IMO we're just getting into knowledge issues here. Different people have different threshholds of how much justification is required for them to accept something as true. You also have to be careful to differentiate between knowledge and beliefs. A lot of people don't have much faith these days; they require justification before they'll believe anything, especially relating to deities, higher powers, etc.

What about people who are agnostic (ie don't claim to know whether or not there is a god), but haven't decided whether they believe in god or not (ie according to your definition, can't decide whether to be theists or atheists)? I don't think it's fair to classify people in such a binary system, because people really have different levels of beliefs.

For example, the belief in Santa Claus changes gradually from when you're 3 or 4 years old until when you're 12 or whatever. It doesn't just suddenly go from a "yes" to a "no" one day. It gradually slides away from you, until you no longer have anything to believe in.

BTW... if you have anything to argue with any of my previous posts, go ahead and quote them and make your counter-arguments. I'm always open to debate, as I too have spent years contemplating stuff like this.

quote:

Originally posted by Espresso unfortunately this thread got so ridiculously out of control, with DJ_Elyot making all sort of claims and statments (which flaws could be pointed out so easily), that i don't think anyone cares to reply anymore (including myself), everything and anything has been touched on the surface without making any constructive conclusions or yeilding any results. also due to respect to jem_hader's initial idea of starting a roll call for athiests, i think the thread should stick to what it was meant for (i myself, am to blame for hijacking the thread and leading it to other subjects of discussion, which i apologize for). if there's real and serious interest in the subjects discussed in this thread and if we're all focused on constructive discussions and debates, i would suggest taking one topic at a time and dealing with it until we get to some sort of conclusion, dealing with it in a seperate thread. why not start with atheism and discuss that first, as it's the starting point, which most of the other topics discussed here (religion,homosexuality,moral values, modern science,etc) relate to. if you agree, i'm defintely in for some idea sharing and serious discussions. on a side note,no offense, but some people that regard themseleves as athiests/agnostics here, quite frankly don't even know much about atheism/agnostism , hence making contradictionary statments(fate, higher being,etc), much of it being due to the not-so-correct defenition that jem_hader made of atheist/agnostic. the definitions have apparently become more complicated nowadays (as my reserach showed) , that's why there's a lot of confusion here. anyways that's my opinion, since i've spent 7-8 years of my life dealing/struggling with these issues, i don't take them lightly, maybe i'm wrong to think that everyone else should be serious about them too.

someones having a bad day!

Just got an email at work from one of our more *religiously-inclinded* office staff... it was interesting...

thought id post it here:

quote:

[Fwd: Fw: Hypocrasy] Is it Hypocrasy? ... THE LAW IS THE LAW. I hope this makes its way around CANADA several times over!!! So if the CANADIAN government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money, then, so be it. And if that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it. And since they already have prohibited any prayer in the schools, on which they deem their authority, then so be it. I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding Canadian citizen I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions. I would like to think that those people have the Canadian Public's best interests at heart. BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE? Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don't believe the Government and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas... celebrations which honour the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of Canadian life. I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day. I'd like our Government to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays. After all, it's just another day. I'd like ALL representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all... it's just another day. I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct." In fact... I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God...) because, after all, our government says that it should be just another day... What do you all think??? If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the minority opinions and begin, once again, to represent the majority of ALL of the people. SO BE IT!

-jem-

Hey Jem, is your co-worker saying that the majority of people would NOT like extra statutory holidays?

EDIT:
Uhhhh nevermind! Re-read it again and realized that the majority opinion he/she is talking about is perhaps having a stronger presence of God in society (i.e. on money, in buildings, etc.). But again, maybe I'm still reading it wrong!!

so 27 pages later, it all boils down to opinions....

why do we care so much about the opinions of others?

Maybe cuz it's possible that other people's experiences/thoughts can enrich our lives? (or if we totally disagree, strengthen our own values...)

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree Hey Jem, is your co-worker saying that the majority of people would NOT like extra statutory holidays? EDIT: Uhhhh nevermind! Re-read it again and realized that the majority opinion he/she is talking about is perhaps having a stronger presence of God in society (i.e. on money, in buildings, etc.). But again, maybe I'm still reading it wrong!!

This jist/point of that mass eamil forward was to say that hey listen, you tell us u dont want god influence being felt here or being mentinoed here, YET, yall are still happy as fuck to take days off for religious holidays... why the fuck arent u petitioning to have banned to... its saying how can u support stopping gods public display in one regard, but u whole heartedly accept it in other situations (ie. where u benefit and get days off)

id state the holes that i see in that, but im tired as piss and dont wanna get into it now... i can see the point they're trying to make, but there glossing over a few things... ill expound on this later.

-jem-

Yeah...there seemed to be a few holes...but I don't really care. I was just curious to know what this person thought the "majority" opinions were (as opposed to the minority)...that to me is a more compelling discussion, as we are all members of the public.

Dyslexic Atheists believe there is no dog.

This thread has risen once again like Jesus!

Too tired to poste proper comment...

UNITY! Together, united, we will prevail! Now let's pop in a trance CD and discuss some good ole atheism!

~jem~

Heres some doumentries for ya.



[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]

Hah.. surprised I missed this..

Raised Catholic.. undetermined however.. I think agnostic is closer to my beliefs.

I believe in Pastafarianism.

Oh what a great religion it is indeed.

Link: (for all those interested in knowing about this religion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying...etti_Monsterism

I do believe in a higher power. And I have grown up following hinduism - so I guess is agnostic for me...

quote:

Originally posted by cyper I believe in Pastafarianism. Oh what a great religion it is indeed. Link: (for all those interested in knowing about this religion) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying...etti_Monsterism

hahaha...thats awesome

I lol'd at this: Pastafarians believe that pirates are divine beings and how the loss of pirates has caused global warming...

I don't know if this would fall under the agnostic category. I believe there is a God...or at least a higher power...I don't doubt that. But I'm unsure as to what total faith I believe in. So add me to that list I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by *~LiSa-LoO~* I don't know if this would fall under the agnostic category. I believe there is a God...or at least a higher power...I don't doubt that. But I'm unsure as to what total faith I believe in. So add me to that list I guess.

I thought you were a church goer? How do you reconsile making a profession of faith while questioning whether or not you believe that faith?

tota never fails to make me go:

quote:

Originally posted by Irishaddict Hah.. surprised I missed this.. Raised Catholic.. undetermined however.. I think agnostic is closer to my beliefs.

+1 Same situation here

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.