|
Porn causes atheism? (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| boris_the_bear |
| this thread need random jesus lolpics |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
You're wrong though, theism is more than the position that a deity exists. Theism by definition asserts that god exists and that this god interferes with human affairs; a personal god.
Here are some definitions of deism, just from dictionary.com:
1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
Whereas theism:
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).
3. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
Deism makes no statement on the nature of god, whereas theism does. The part underlined proves my point. I don't understand how you can say deism is a harder position to defend. |
I love when things have multiple definitions!
Definition 1 under Theism would actually be for a very specific brand on Monotheism, definition 3 is also a very specific kind of theism... neither 1 nor 3 would capture all theists; therefore, they are invalid/inaccurate. Only definition 2 under theism is valid... the belief in a god(s). The first definition of Deism is the only one of the two that would capture all deists, as some believe that the creator does intercede.
I think we can all agree that dictionary.com is not the best source for a definition on a complex idea.
If we cannot agree on the terms then I suppose further discussion cannot be fruitful. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no, lets!! :p
i'll let our learned friend renegade take over from here |
Will all due respect to Renegade and to you I really cannot tolerate this definition of atheism, nor would I tolerate an equally wishy-washy definition of theism. Both of these positions are the extreme on the scale and both claim KNOWLEDGE of the existence/non-existence of god(s). If someone entertains the possibility that their position is not correct then they have disqualified themselves from either label... I view this watering down of either of these strong positions into sub-categories as being nothing more then rhetorical gymnastics undertaken in an attempt to free oneself of the indefensible aspects of the position while still retaining a label that said individual is found of.
| quote: | | im unaware of any theistic position that ends there though; organised religion wouldnt be nearly as organised otherwise ;) |
Religion and theism are not the same thing... sure religion depends on theism; however, it is possible to be a theist and not subscribe to any further belief or take any further position.
| quote: | | i don't see secularist arguments as making unproven claims though. |
I don't think I ever suggested that they did; simply that positions taken beyond "there is no god" or "there is a god" are more then simple atheism or theism. I would actually consider myself to be a secularist, as I feel religion has no place in public policy/education/law/etc.
| quote: | | denying the assertions of theists isn't really a belief, again it is merely a position of scepticism. for instance, "there is a god" is much the same statement as "jesus was the son of god" or "god wants us to love thy neighour and thy god". a disbelief in such notions doesn't bear the same onus as the positive assertions of said notions. |
First... stating there is a god is not in any way shape or form much the same as stating that Jesus was the son of god... billions of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, Jains, etc. believe in deities but not that Jesus was the son thereof.
Second... as I stated before; what you call strong atheism is the only atheism as far as I'm concerned and it makes an equally positive assertion as does theism. Expressing disbelief is not the same as the positive assertion that there is no god.
| quote: | | Well, that’s why I would contend that much of atheism doesn't actually make a positive assertion, anymore than the newborn child makes the conscious assertion that there is no god. indeed, the assertion that "there is no god" only really needs to be mentioned when confronted with a theistic position, otherwise it plays next to no role. Sure, people like dawkins might make the claim that god definitely doesn't exist, |
A newborn child has no position on the subject... therefore they are indifferent... someone who takes a position has given the mater thought, if they take a absolute position (as both atheism and theism are) then they are making a positive assertion. How can one claim knowledge without making a positive assertion?
| quote: | | but plenty of atheists (myself included) merely subscribe to the position stated by renegade; that given all that we know nothing substantiates a belief in god, therefore a disbelief in the notion is more reasonable. |
That's not really atheism then... I mean call yourself whatever you're most comfortable with but what you're really doing is trying to avoid being called to defend an indefensible position. It's fine to not believe but that's different then stating you know that the belief is false. Just as I would never argue that what I believe is entirely true without possibility of being false nor would you argue that what I believe is entirely false without possibility of being true. This really disqualifies us from the titles of theist or atheist in my books (and in truth; although you describe me as your favorite theist I would actually identify myself as agnostic given I believe rather then know).
| quote: | | I think the person making the positive claim is the person that should bear the most responsibility for providing evidence, and I don’t think most atheists make the positive claim, at least not when you talk to them seriously about it. I am the first to admit there could be a god, but given the lack of supporting evidence, I simply can't entertain the notion: |
I agree with you, the person making the positive claim is the one who has the onus of proof; however, I see the atheist position (what you and Dicky Dawkins would call strong atheism) as being such a claim. As you admit there could be a god I fully admit that there is a strong probability that there is no god; moreover, that if there is a god it is nearly impossible that what any of the great faiths believe to be god is accurate. This is why I call my belief exactly that... a belief, not knowledge... I can't have that knowledge... it is beyond me... thus I am left with only belief or lack thereof... all people are left with only belief or lack thereof... which is why arguing knowledge on this subject is irrational; subsequently, why both theism and atheism are folly. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Will all due respect to Renegade and to you I really cannot tolerate this definition of atheism, nor would I tolerate an equally wishy-washy definition of theism. Both of these positions are the extreme on the scale and both claim KNOWLEDGE of the existence/non-existence of god(s). If someone entertains the possibility that their position is not correct then they have disqualified themselves from either label... I view this watering down of either of these strong positions into sub-categories as being nothing more then rhetorical gymnastics undertaken in an attempt to free oneself of the indefensible aspects of the position while still retaining a label that said individual is found of. |
My problem with this view is that it seems to assume that someone who "knows" the truth or falsity of a particular claim does not entertain the possibility that they are wrong. But no one seems to demand that knowledge reflect this kind of absolute certainty in non-religious contexts. If I say that "I know what I am going to have for dinner tonight," it does not preclude consideration of the possibility that some intervening circumstance will change those plans. If knowledge were confined to those things about which we could rationally exclude all possibility of error, then the sum of human knowledge would be small indeed.
Further, under that narrow conception of "knowledge," no one could ever claim to "know" anything: choice to use the word "know," thus distinguishing it from the things they merely "believe," would entail deciding whether or not they have entertained the possibility that they are wrong, an exercise that could not be completed without engaging in the very act that would cause it to no longer qualify as knowledge. Language may be inextricably subjective, but such an exacting standard for what constitutes "knowledge" seems to fall well outside the mainstream usage, at least in my experience. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
My problem with this view is that it seems to assume that someone who "knows" the truth or falsity of a particular claim does not entertain the possibility that they are wrong. But no one seems to demand that knowledge reflect this kind of absolute certainty in non-religious contexts. If I say that "I know what I am going to have for dinner tonight," it does not preclude consideration of the possibility that some intervening circumstance will change those plans. If knowledge were confined to those things about which we could rationally exclude all possibility of error, then the sum of human knowledge would be small indeed. |
Indeed, as it should be.
| quote: | | Further, under that narrow conception of "knowledge," no one could ever claim to "know" anything: choice to use the word "know," thus distinguishing it from the things they merely "believe," would entail deciding whether or not they have entertained the possibility that they are wrong, an exercise that could not be completed without engaging in the very act that would cause it to no longer qualify as knowledge. Language may be inextricably subjective, but such an exacting standard for what constitutes "knowledge" seems to fall well outside the mainstream usage, at least in my experience. |
Again, I agree... we don't know very much at all... we believe much, we understand much, we agree to much, we accept as true much; but we know very, very little. Perhaps it is my training; however, I find definite statements which are not supportable to be intolerable. Additionally, (also probably due to my training and profession) language should be as exacting as possible and the mainstream usage of many words is simply inaccurate especially when nuanced positions are being discussed, as in this thread. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Even if you want to define "knowledge" in a very narrow way, you can still talk about ideas that are better-supported or less-supported by available evidence and arguments -- even if you think that they finally fall short of your standard of "knowledge." |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
Birds evolved from dinosaurs. You should have learned that when you were 8.
What does that have to do with creationism anyway? |
because creationists beleive dinosaurs and humans roamed at the same time. albeit prehistoric dinosaur genera, a play on semantics gives you the same result. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| the only thing porn ever created was sore wrists |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I love when things have multiple definitions!
Definition 1 under Theism would actually be for a very specific brand on Monotheism, definition 3 is also a very specific kind of theism... neither 1 nor 3 would capture all theists; therefore, they are invalid/inaccurate. Only definition 2 under theism is valid... the belief in a god(s). The first definition of Deism is the only one of the two that would capture all deists, as some believe that the creator does intercede.
I think we can all agree that dictionary.com is not the best source for a definition on a complex idea.
If we cannot agree on the terms then I suppose further discussion cannot be fruitful. |
Definition 2 for theism would capture all deists too though, so I would still take the position that theism is more than simply belief in some kind of god. I guess you're right, I don't think we'll agree, although if you would be so kind as to define theism / deism, then I might be able to understand your position better. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
Definition 2 for theism would capture all deists too though, so I would still take the position that theism is more than simply belief in some kind of god. I guess you're right, I don't think we'll agree, although if you would be so kind as to define theism / deism, then I might be able to understand your position better. |
Indeed, definition 2 for theism would capture deists too. This should be expected as one must first believe there is a deity before one can believe that said deity created the universe. The deist position is an evolution from basic theism just the same as monotheism, pantheism and all the religions that fall into those categories are.
I thought I had already adequately defined both theism and deism... Theism is the belief that a minimum of one deity exists... Deism is the belief that a minimum of one deity exists and that said deity(s) are responsible for the creation of the universe.
Note; theists do not believe in the creation myth of Genesis... some Jews, Christians and Muslims do, but not all theists. Theists do not believe that Brahman is the absolute reality... most Hindus and Jains do, but not all theists. Theists do not believe that Haile Selassie was the messiah... Rastafarians do, but not all theists. Do you understand what I'm saying? Theist is a catch-all for any person that believes in the existence of any deity (full stop). Any belief about the nature of this deity, the deity's interaction with the physical world, worship, etc. is not theism; rather, it is something more that may require someone to be a theist but is not simply theism. |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
If porn causes atheism, why do I cry out "OH GOD OH GOD!" every time I orgasm?? |
:stongue: no !
well, i say oh MY god:o |
|
|
| elFreak |
| i like to say allah akbar alalalalalalafalafel when i pop a load on a face. |
|
|
|
|
