ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: QuantumJG on November 20, 2010, 10:33:35 am
-
Atheism and Christmas: Should Atheists Ignore Christmas or Celebrate It?
Christmas is coming up and the whole dilemma of whether I should still celebrate it or not since as an atheist it does seem like hypocrisy. Having said that its the time of the year that I get to see family and don't want to stop that.
I am the first of my family to become an atheist as everyone else is catholic. My grandparents are strong Catholics and my parents are weaker catholics. So I'm the odd one out.
I personally believe Jesus existed, having said that, just as a normal human being. With regards to the star seen at his birth, scientists predict the gigantic star was actually the light from a supanova that had reached earth long after it actually went supernova.
With regards to the above website, it discusses christmas is becoming a secularized event. So I may not be a hypocrite.
Anyway I would love people's views.
-
I used to go to a catholic school and was probably the biggest christian out.
However upon doing something the church condemns (THINKING FOR ONESELF) i realised how much bullshit it is, and my family as followed suit.
However its what christmas is about rather than the tradition and event behind it that matters. I love seeing my family as you have mentioned, so i dont give a shit if i dont believe in it, (i actually hate religion) but i am not going to hate something that brings people together.
and also... PRESENTS! :D
in regards to your paragraph on Jesus' existence. I think thats crap IMO.
One of my favourite quotes ever is;
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
The fact that the gospels were written 300 years after Jesus' existence and there is no real proof of him living somewhat erodes the credibility about the whole story of him living lmao
-
I think a true atheist would not celebrate Christmas. Though, being surrounded in a family that is highly religious and celebrating the event heavily would make it a little hard I guess. To anyone who disagrees I tell them to think back to that episode of The Simpsons where Lisa becomes a buddhist while her family celebrates Christmas. It caused her much hardship and I bet it would to anyone else in her shoes.
-
i dont think it would "cause much hardship."
Do people really take it that seriously?
A religious individual taking part in an atheistic festival would instill a great sense of hardship within themselves. However me, being an atheist could not give two shits if i was surrounded by catholic festivities. It makes people happy etc, and the only thing i would feel is annoyance and boredom, not hardship.
-
If the holiday doesn't hold any particular significance to you, don't treat it as a religious holiday. It's also a public event/public holiday, so I don't see any hypocrisy in not working, celebrating etc. You're still entitled to enjoy it, even if you don't believe in whatever the underlying theme is.
The fact that the gospels were written 300 years after Jesus' existence and there is no real proof of him living somewhat erodes the credibility about the whole story of him living lmao
Can we not do this, because it always ends badly.
-
like russ said, you can enjoy it without religion. if your family gets together and celebrates, then celebrate spending time with them - they won't be around forever. if they go to mass, doesn't mean you have to.
if you can't face the hassle of confronting your family with your mass abstinence, you could volunteer at the city mission or something that night. religion doesn't have a monopoly on charity, and they can't blame you for actually doing what the bible says but from different motives ;)
-
I don't mind going to church, even thought I have no particular affiliation with the catholic church. Unless it's one of the long services with an excessive amount of reading etc, I find the atmosphere enjoyable and relaxing.
So yeah, you don't have to be a devout Christian to find the Christmas worthwhile
-
I'm a Jewish atheist and I love hymns and carols (except the corny ones)
-
Already said but I like reiterating stuff. The term Christmas has deviated quite significantly from what it was originally considered. That being, for a lot of people, Christians and others alike, bears little spiritual significance to them. If Atheists do not believe in the religion, that's okay. The religious elements of it has been quite secularised anyway. Plus, why should they care about the religious significance of Christmas if they don't believe in it anyway? If you're Anti-Theist, on the other hand, I can see where the problem might occur but this usually only applies to idiots and teenage 'Atheists' anyway (and no one cares about them).
-
I think a true atheist would not celebrate Christmas. Though, being surrounded in a family that is highly religious and celebrating the event heavily would make it a little hard I guess. To anyone who disagrees I tell them to think back to that episode of The Simpsons where Lisa becomes a buddhist while her family celebrates Christmas. It caused her much hardship and I bet it would to anyone else in her shoes.
Ah yes. Not even idealists can free themselves from the burden of conformity
Already said but I like reiterating stuff. The term Christmas has deviated quite significantly from what it was originally considered. That being, for a lot of people, Christians and others alike, bears little spiritual significance to them. If Atheists do not believe in the religion, that's okay. The religious elements of it has been quite secularised anyway. Plus, why should they care about the religious significance of Christmas if they don't believe in it anyway? If you're Anti-Theist, on the other hand, I can see where the problem might occur but this usually only applies to idiots and teenage 'Atheists' anyway (and no one cares about them).
Not so much secularized - more like marketed, commercialized, over-advertised and reduced down to a profit margin, denuding religious significance with every transaction. By being watered down to an annual media moment, replete with 50% off sales, and magical memories of presents under trees that children vicariously experience in the latest Santa flick - Christmas becomes nothing more than an excuse splurge on another unnecessary waste of furniture and crappy plastic toys.
Full disclaimer: Hanukkah FTW
-
didn't read the entire thread but i lul'd slightly
"to become an atheist" being an atheist just means you've discovered you can actually think about the world logically, realising how rubbish religion is (to put it bluntly ;) ) so you're not converting to be one, you are still the same person. it's a change in thought not a conversion... to me, christmas has no religion attached to it, it's just a family celebration type event whereby it is a time of giving and such.
so celebrate what you choose, let it be religious only if you decide it to be, otherwise it is not religious at all.
(agreeing to what Russ/binders said)
;P
-
being an atheist just means you've discovered you can actually think about the world logically,
You have just eliminated 3000 years of religious thought
-
I don't have a problem with celebrating christmas lol
To me christmas is simply a festive time where people can exchange good wishes and gifts. I don't care much for the birth of jesus but I don't mind it as a traditional story either.
Then again, some atheists might not want to celebrate christmas, and that's totally up to them. It's not like 'atheism' has a set of rules you have to follow, and I don't think you can generalise atheistic attitudes. There is no 'true' atheist in the same sense as a 'true' christian. Every atheist is as atheistic as every other atheist. All it requires is lack of belief in god. (see my next post)
-
I think Christmas, like Easter, has lost most of its religious meaning since it became so... commercialised.
The only way I'm "celebrating" it is by not working, and that's not even by choice (the office closes over Xmas break hmph). I'm not sure that's got anything to do with being a "good" atheist (I'm agnostic, anyway), but rather just coming from a family which doesn't really celebrate this stuff
-
I don't have a problem with celebrating christmas lol
To me christmas is simply a festive time where people can exchange good wishes and gifts. I don't care much for the birth of jesus but I don't mind it as a traditional story either.
Then again, some atheists might not want to celebrate christmas, and that's totally up to them. It's not like 'atheism' has a set of rules you have to follow, and I don't think you can generalise atheistic attitudes. There is no 'true' atheist in the same sense as a 'true' christian. Every atheist is as atheistic as every other atheist. All it requires is lack of belief in god.
Isn't atheism de facto an organized religion?
Agnosticism or Irreligion is the blanket to describe those who don't know and don't care.
-
Every atheist is as atheistic as every other atheist. All it requires is lack of belief in god.
Not quite, remember this post?
http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,27960.msg289418.html#msg289418
-
I don't have a problem with celebrating christmas lol
To me christmas is simply a festive time where people can exchange good wishes and gifts. I don't care much for the birth of jesus but I don't mind it as a traditional story either.
Then again, some atheists might not want to celebrate christmas, and that's totally up to them. It's not like 'atheism' has a set of rules you have to follow, and I don't think you can generalise atheistic attitudes. There is no 'true' atheist in the same sense as a 'true' christian. Every atheist is as atheistic as every other atheist. All it requires is lack of belief in god.
Isn't atheism de facto an organized religion?
Agnosticism or Irreligion is the blanket to describe those who don't know and don't care.
I like the way a youtube atheist puts it:
"
If atheism is a "religion",...
then Not Collecting Stamps is a "hobby".
If atheism is a "religion", ...
then Not Playing Football is a "sport".
If atheism is a "religion", ...
then 'OFF' is a "TV channel".
If atheism is a "religion", ...
then "Health" is a "disease".
If atheism is a "religion", ...
then "Dead" is a "lifestyle".
"
Agnosticism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. It's simply a philosophy that you cannot know something for certain without proof.
Actually, perhaps I wasn't quite correct in my previous post, as there are, broadly, two kinds of atheists. The weak atheist does not believe in gods, while the strong atheist says there are no gods. While weak atheism is definitely not a religion, and I think it is the most reasonable stance, I guess you could argue strong atheism is pretty similar to religion in terms of its unsubstantiated belief.
EDIT: Thanks Ninwa... I made a mistake before.
I think what I mean is that weak atheists are all as atheistic as each other.
-
I personally believe Jesus existed, having said that, just as a normal human being.
I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who doesn't believe that Jesus existed at all. There are too many records from various sources of his life and death to plausibly refute his very existence.
With regards to the star seen at his birth, scientists predict the gigantic star was actually the light from a supanova that had reached earth long after it actually went supernova.
I don't see the point of this? How does the fact that the light was from a natural source detract from the act itself? God orchestrated it, utilising the universe he created. Just because there is a natural explanation for something does not exclude any sentient involvement.
( Cue massive debate? .. I hope not, can't be bothered xD )
-
With regards to the star seen at his birth, scientists predict the gigantic star was actually the light from a supanova that had reached earth long after it actually went supernova.
I don't see the point of this? How does the fact that the light was from a natural source detract from the act itself? God orchestrated it, utilising the universe he created. Just because there is a natural explanation for something does not exclude any sentient involvement.
( Cue massive debate? .. I hope not, can't be bothered xD )
I agree with you here. I don't understand it people when say 'well that wasn't a miracle, it was just nature'. For example, I read recently that scientists worked out that a strong wind could have caused the Reed Sea to split, hence there's no need to call it miracle. Maybe it was caused by natural causes, but the fact that it happened at that exact time is the miracle, as G-d manipulated nature to cause it to happen at the right time. Simirlarly, 'the walls of Jericho weren't brought down by G-d, it was an earthquake'. Well yeh, but Who caused the earthquake?
-
didn't read the entire thread but i lul'd slightly
"to become an atheist" being an atheist just means you've discovered you can actually think about the world logically, realising how rubbish religion is (to put it bluntly ;) ) so you're not converting to be one, you are still the same person. it's a change in thought not a conversion... to me, christmas has no religion attached to it, it's just a family celebration type event whereby it is a time of giving and such.
so celebrate what you choose, let it be religious only if you decide it to be, otherwise it is not religious at all.
(agreeing to what Russ/binders said)
;P
Lol!
being an atheist just means you've discovered you can actually think about the world logically,
You have just eliminated 3000 years of religious thought
What vexx said is true though. I'm bluntly going to say that the majority of people want to be told how to live their life. Religion is that algorithm, recipe, etc.
"waits for abusive replies"
-
I personally believe Jesus existed, having said that, just as a normal human being.
I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who doesn't believe that Jesus existed at all. There are too many records from various sources of his life and death to plausibly refute his very existence.
I would be interested in seeing said sources.
-
I would be interested in seeing said sources.
I'm no expert, and this isn't a source, but to my knowledge several religions believe Jesus existed in some form. It would be strange for religions that seem against each other to agree upon the existence of one figure when they can't agree on anything else.
-
Agnosticism or Irreligion is the blanket to describe those who don't know and don't care.
Do you contend that agnostics are unable or unwilling to form a position, and therefore perhaps simple-minded individuals?
Being agnostic myself, i would find this to be quite insulting.
I understand that 'God' can not logically exist, given the laws of physics etc which we have currently determined are appropriate for the world. In consideration of this mathematical reasoning, i can completely agree that God does not exist.
However, to restrict my 'religious' beliefs to such laws would undoubtedly prove me to be narrow-minded and unreasonable. For to follow such rules so strictly would suggest that no further breakthroughs can occur in this field of reasoning; breakthroughs that could potentially prove 'God's' existence.
I think it would be disrespectful to the progression of society and the potential of the human mind to dismiss the existence of 'God' because of such laws.
Be a little more considerate when defining the nature of those that do not commit themselves to either side of the religious debate.
-
Hardly surprising considering they are all Abrahamic faiths
Hmmm, ham
-
In relation to the OP's question, I think Christmas is more of a cultural thing than a religious thing as such. After all, Christmas came from pagan rituals anyway (which are awesome): http://www.essortment.com/all/christmaspagan_rece.htm
-
being an atheist just means you've discovered you can actually think about the world logically,
You have just eliminated 3000 years of religious thought
What vexx said is true though. I'm bluntly going to say that the majority of people want to be told how to live their life. Religion is that algorithm, recipe, etc.
"waits for abusive replies"
I wouldn't be so quick to rule out religion as illogical. But it's funny to see that in your 17/18 years of erudite experience in theology, you're able to do so. And ye - organized religion is essentially a way of life, an "algorithm", a set of laws. How does that detract from the veracity of certain religions? The American constitution was heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian thought.
Also a side note - if you logically decide to convert/discover a religion for yourself does that mean that "you can't actually think about the world logically?"
-
Agnosticism or Irreligion is the blanket to describe those who don't know and don't care.
Do you contend that agnostics are unable or unwilling to form a position, and therefore perhaps simple-minded individuals?
Being agnostic myself, i would find this to be quite insulting.
I understand that 'God' can not logically exist, given the laws of physics etc which we have currently determined are appropriate for the world. In consideration of this mathematical reasoning, i can completely agree that God does not exist.
However, to restrict my 'religious' beliefs to such laws would undoubtedly prove me to be narrow-minded and unreasonable. For to follow such rules so strictly would suggest that no further breakthroughs can occur in this field of reasoning; breakthroughs that could potentially prove 'God's' existence.
I think it would be disrespectful to the progression of society and the potential of the human mind to dismiss the existence of 'God' because of such laws.
Be a little more considerate when defining the nature of those that do not commit themselves to either side of the religious debate.
I was merely stating the definition.
ag·nos·ti·cism- /ægˈnɒstəˌsɪzəm/ [ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm]
1. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
2. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
ir·re·li·gion- /ˌɪrɪˈlɪdʒən/[ir-i-lij-uhn]
–noun
1. lack of religion.
2. hostility or indifference to religion; impiety.
-
With regards to the star seen at his birth, scientists predict the gigantic star was actually the light from a supanova that had reached earth long after it actually went supernova.
I don't see the point of this? How does the fact that the light was from a natural source detract from the act itself? God orchestrated it, utilising the universe he created. Just because there is a natural explanation for something does not exclude any sentient involvement.
( Cue massive debate? .. I hope not, can't be bothered xD )
I agree with you here. I don't understand it people when say 'well that wasn't a miracle, it was just nature'. For example, I read recently that scientists worked out that a strong wind could have caused the Reed Sea to split, hence there's no need to call it miracle. Maybe it was caused by natural causes, but the fact that it happened at that exact time is the miracle, as G-d manipulated nature to cause it to happen at the right time. Simirlarly, 'the walls of Jericho weren't brought down by G-d, it was an earthquake'. Well yeh, but Who caused the earthquake?
How rare an event was the parting on its own though? Did the Hebrews really see choppy waves give way to wet sand in a flash? Or was the drying-up a slower, less exceptional (and possibly cyclical) phenomenon?
-
But it's funny to see that in your 17/18 years of erudite experience in theology, you're able to do so.
Pot, kettle, ad hominem etc.
He's saying that religion can prescribe things for people to accept unquestioningly, which isn't compatible with logical and independent thought, not that all religions are nonsense.
-
Agnosticism or Irreligion is the blanket to describe those who don't know and don't care.
Do you contend that agnostics are unable or unwilling to form a position, and therefore perhaps simple-minded individuals?
Being agnostic myself, i would find this to be quite insulting.
I understand that 'God' can not logically exist, given the laws of physics etc which we have currently determined are appropriate for the world. In consideration of this mathematical reasoning, i can completely agree that God does not exist.
However, to restrict my 'religious' beliefs to such laws would undoubtedly prove me to be narrow-minded and unreasonable. For to follow such rules so strictly would suggest that no further breakthroughs can occur in this field of reasoning; breakthroughs that could potentially prove 'God's' existence.
I think it would be disrespectful to the progression of society and the potential of the human mind to dismiss the existence of 'God' because of such laws.
Be a little more considerate when defining the nature of those that do not commit themselves to either side of the religious debate.
I was merely stating the definition.
ag·nos·ti·cism- /ægˈnɒstəˌsɪzəm/ [ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm]
1. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
2. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
ir·re·li·gion- /ˌɪrɪˈlɪdʒən/[ir-i-lij-uhn]
–noun
1. lack of religion.
2. hostility or indifference to religion; impiety.
I believe he was taking issue with your contention that all agnostics "don't care".
-
But it's funny to see that in your 17/18 years of erudite experience in theology, you're able to do so.
Pot, kettle, ad hominem etc.
He's saying that religion can prescribe things for people to accept unquestioningly, which isn't compatible with logical and independent thought, not that all religions are nonsense.
Nobody is arguing that blind faith and unquestionable support is correct. I have personally witnessed excellent debates, read commentaries and explanations all on particular aspects of religion by religious people. Saying that every religious person is a robot being spoon-fed a set of laws is pure nonsense.
And yes - my comment applied to me as well. I have neither the research experience or knowledge to give a blanket dismissal of religion, just because it's trendy to do so.
@Ninwa - Irreligion = don't care. Agnosticism = don't know. Perhaps I should have added the word 'respectively' to the end of that sentence.
-
Atheism and Christmas: Should Atheists Ignore Christmas or Celebrate It?
Christmas is coming up and the whole dilemma of whether I should still celebrate it or not since as an atheist it does seem like hypocrisy. Having said that its the time of the year that I get to see family and don't want to stop that.
I am the first of my family to become an atheist as everyone else is catholic. My grandparents are strong Catholics and my parents are weaker catholics. So I'm the odd one out.
I personally believe Jesus existed, having said that, just as a normal human being. With regards to the star seen at his birth, scientists predict the gigantic star was actually the light from a supanova that had reached earth long after it actually went supernova.
With regards to the above website, it discusses christmas is becoming a secularized event. So I may not be a hypocrite.
Anyway I would love people's views.
I have never 'celebrated' Christmas lol nor does my family.
-
@Ninwa - Irreligion = don't care. Agnosticism = don't know. Perhaps I should have added the word 'respectively' to the end of that sentence.
Ninwa was correct.
Although, even with this correction, I feel that your perception of the definition of agnosticism remains flawed and insulting.
Agnostics propose that it is impossible to know whether 'God' exists, no matter who you are. Your definition, however, implies that it is a failure of knowledge within the agnostic person that causes them to not know, rather than the objectively unknowable nature of 'God's' existence.
-
With regards to the star seen at his birth, scientists predict the gigantic star was actually the light from a supanova that had reached earth long after it actually went supernova.
I don't see the point of this? How does the fact that the light was from a natural source detract from the act itself? God orchestrated it, utilising the universe he created. Just because there is a natural explanation for something does not exclude any sentient involvement.
( Cue massive debate? .. I hope not, can't be bothered xD )
I agree with you here. I don't understand it people when say 'well that wasn't a miracle, it was just nature'. For example, I read recently that scientists worked out that a strong wind could have caused the Reed Sea to split, hence there's no need to call it miracle. Maybe it was caused by natural causes, but the fact that it happened at that exact time is the miracle, as G-d manipulated nature to cause it to happen at the right time. Simirlarly, 'the walls of Jericho weren't brought down by G-d, it was an earthquake'. Well yeh, but Who caused the earthquake?
How rare an event was the parting on its own though? Did the Hebrews really see choppy waves give way to wet sand in a flash? Or was the drying-up a slower, less exceptional (and possibly cyclical) phenomenon?
Well if you read the source, it appears to have happened overnight. And it didn't give way to wet sand, it was actually dry underneath. In any case, there has been no record of such a phenomenon occuring at any other time in history, so I don't see how you could propose that it is a cyclical event.
-
With regards to the star seen at his birth, scientists predict the gigantic star was actually the light from a supanova that had reached earth long after it actually went supernova.
I don't see the point of this? How does the fact that the light was from a natural source detract from the act itself? God orchestrated it, utilising the universe he created. Just because there is a natural explanation for something does not exclude any sentient involvement.
( Cue massive debate? .. I hope not, can't be bothered xD )
I agree with you here. I don't understand it people when say 'well that wasn't a miracle, it was just nature'. For example, I read recently that scientists worked out that a strong wind could have caused the Reed Sea to split, hence there's no need to call it miracle. Maybe it was caused by natural causes, but the fact that it happened at that exact time is the miracle, as G-d manipulated nature to cause it to happen at the right time. Simirlarly, 'the walls of Jericho weren't brought down by G-d, it was an earthquake'. Well yeh, but Who caused the earthquake?
How rare an event was the parting on its own though? Did the Hebrews really see choppy waves give way to wet sand in a flash? Or was the drying-up a slower, less exceptional (and possibly cyclical) phenomenon?
Well if you read the source, it appears to have happened overnight. And it didn't give way to wet sand, it was actually dry underneath. In any case, there has been no record of such a phenomenon occuring at any other time in history, so I don't see how you could propose that it is a cyclical event.
Global Warming, too much water in the oceans now to decrease it to the point it was back in ye' olde days.
On a serious note, though:
Religion is given the colloquial term 'faith' for a very good reason. To me, that's exactly what religion provides, a way of hope and faith for people to live their lives. Who cares if Judy down the road wishes to find acceptance of her husband's death in the Christian God, a Buddhist Tenant or the scientific knowledge that he is decomposed into the earth to rejuvenate the life around him. What I'm getting at is it's not as though there's a right or wrong way of believing when they all provide such positive outlooks of life. It's the only way for some people to survive.
However, while there is no right or wrong religion, there are right or wrong people within those religions. These people are the extremists, the ones who believe "If you're not part of our religion then you're our enemy/going to die/going to hell" or "I don't care how much you require this to get by in life, your logic is flawed for *<no one can build a universe in seven days>*." These are the lowest forms of scum in the world that we know of and they deserve no one's time to be acknowledged. And anyway, no one is going to digest a thing you say by force feeding them down the throat. You have to allow them to develop their own way of thinking as they find their own way through life.
*<Insert religious belief here>*
On-topic Note:
OP, definitely celebrate Christmas. It's easily a secular occasion in modern times..
-
On-topic Note:
OP, definitely celebrate Christmas. It's easily a secular occasion in modern times..
Yeah, you're not going to lose any atheist points buddy.
We promise we won't tell Mr Dawkins.
-
Christmas isn't about Jesus anymore it's about seeing who can spend the most money to buy someones love for 1 day of the year and how much money companies can make selling expensive crap to people.
-
On-topic Note:
OP, definitely celebrate Christmas. It's easily a secular occasion in modern times..
Yeah, you're not going to lose any atheist points buddy.
We promise we won't tell Mr Dawkins.
A quick wikipedia search tells me you mean Richard Dawkins.
I don't see how he's related o.O
-
On-topic Note:
OP, definitely celebrate Christmas. It's easily a secular occasion in modern times..
Yeah, you're not going to lose any atheist points buddy.
We promise we won't tell Mr Dawkins.
A quick wikipedia search tells me you mean Richard Dawkins.
I don't see how he's related o.O
He is the Jesus of atheists, basically.
-
Christmas isn't about Jesus anymore it's about seeing who can spend the most money to buy someones love for 1 day of the year and how much money companies can make selling expensive crap to people.
Valentine's Day is worse!
-
@Ninwa - Irreligion = don't care. Agnosticism = don't know. Perhaps I should have added the word 'respectively' to the end of that sentence.
Ninwa was correct.
Although, even with this correction, I feel that your perception of the definition of agnosticism remains flawed and insulting.
Agnostics propose that it is impossible to know whether 'God' exists, no matter who you are. Your definition, however, implies that it is a failure of knowledge within the agnostic person that causes them to not know, rather than the objectively unknowable nature of 'God's' existence.
Regardless of how you feel, you should know that painting Agnostics as igorant wasn't the intent of my post - I was merely providing a simplified definition that you now take out of context by insinuating an insult that doesn't exist/
Of all the debates in history, the debate on the merits of Agnosticism would be one of the least constructive, because Agnostics have little or no burden of proof, or little to argue on either side of the 'religion debate'. It reminds me of a quote: 'You're only sitting on the fence because you can't make up your mind'. Unless of course evidence is discovered to sway you one way or the other.
Side note: 1000 VN Furniture time :coolsmiley:
-
@Ninwa - Irreligion = don't care. Agnosticism = don't know. Perhaps I should have added the word 'respectively' to the end of that sentence.
Ninwa was correct.
Although, even with this correction, I feel that your perception of the definition of agnosticism remains flawed and insulting.
Agnostics propose that it is impossible to know whether 'God' exists, no matter who you are. Your definition, however, implies that it is a failure of knowledge within the agnostic person that causes them to not know, rather than the objectively unknowable nature of 'God's' existence.
Regardless of how you feel, you should know that painting Agnostics as igorant wasn't the intent of my post - I was merely providing a simplified definition that you now take out of context by insinuating an insult that doesn't exist/
Of all the debates in history, the debate on the merits of Agnosticism would be one of the least constructive, because Agnostics have little or no burden of proof, or little to argue on either side of the 'religion debate'. It reminds me of a quote: 'You're only sitting on the fence because you can't make up your mind'. Unless of course evidence is discovered to sway you one way or the other.
Side note: 1000 VN Furniture time :coolsmiley:
Your simplification of the definition took a form that is insulting, however.
In defense of my Agnostic position, which you have now ever so clearly denigrated, let me borrow an idea from John Paulos:
uncertainty is the only certainty.
Nothing can be undoubtedly known or proven; hence my agnosticism.
Do not generalise the attitudes of some careless agnostics to ALL agnostics.
-
@Ninwa - Irreligion = don't care. Agnosticism = don't know. Perhaps I should have added the word 'respectively' to the end of that sentence.
Ninwa was correct.
Although, even with this correction, I feel that your perception of the definition of agnosticism remains flawed and insulting.
Agnostics propose that it is impossible to know whether 'God' exists, no matter who you are. Your definition, however, implies that it is a failure of knowledge within the agnostic person that causes them to not know, rather than the objectively unknowable nature of 'God's' existence.
Regardless of how you feel, you should know that painting Agnostics as igorant wasn't the intent of my post - I was merely providing a simplified definition that you now take out of context by insinuating an insult that doesn't exist/
Of all the debates in history, the debate on the merits of Agnosticism would be one of the least constructive, because Agnostics have little or no burden of proof, or little to argue on either side of the 'religion debate'. It reminds me of a quote: 'You're only sitting on the fence because you can't make up your mind'. Unless of course evidence is discovered to sway you one way or the other.
Side note: 1000 VN Furniture time :coolsmiley:
Your simplification of the definition took a form that is insulting, however.
In defense of my Agnostic position, which you have now ever so clearly denigrated, let me borrow an idea from John Paulos:
uncertainty is the only certainty.
Nothing can be undoubtedly known or proven; hence my agnosticism.
Do not generalise the attitudes of some careless agnostics to ALL agnostics.
All you have done is corroborated the simplified definition that I have provided.
Find as many synonyms as you wish to the terms 'uncertainty' and 'unsure' and you will arrive at 'don't know'.
And like I mentioned in a previous post, there is little need to defend your 'Agnostic position'. You have no burden of proof. You have no claims, only lack thereof.
Stop trying to turn something into a debate when it's clearly not.
-
@Ninwa - Irreligion = don't care. Agnosticism = don't know. Perhaps I should have added the word 'respectively' to the end of that sentence.
Ninwa was correct.
Although, even with this correction, I feel that your perception of the definition of agnosticism remains flawed and insulting.
Agnostics propose that it is impossible to know whether 'God' exists, no matter who you are. Your definition, however, implies that it is a failure of knowledge within the agnostic person that causes them to not know, rather than the objectively unknowable nature of 'God's' existence.
Regardless of how you feel, you should know that painting Agnostics as igorant wasn't the intent of my post - I was merely providing a simplified definition that you now take out of context by insinuating an insult that doesn't exist/
Of all the debates in history, the debate on the merits of Agnosticism would be one of the least constructive, because Agnostics have little or no burden of proof, or little to argue on either side of the 'religion debate'. It reminds me of a quote: 'You're only sitting on the fence because you can't make up your mind'. Unless of course evidence is discovered to sway you one way or the other.
Side note: 1000 VN Furniture time :coolsmiley:
Your simplification of the definition took a form that is insulting, however.
In defense of my Agnostic position, which you have now ever so clearly denigrated, let me borrow an idea from John Paulos:
uncertainty is the only certainty.
Nothing can be undoubtedly known or proven; hence my agnosticism.
Do not generalise the attitudes of some careless agnostics to ALL agnostics.
All you have done is corroborated the simplified definition that I have provided.
Find as many synonyms as you wish to the terms 'uncertainty' and 'unsure' and you will arrive at 'don't know'.
And like I mentioned in a previous post, there is little need to defend your 'Agnostic position'. You have no burden of proof. You have no claims, only lack thereof.
Stop trying to turn something into a debate when it's clearly not.
"don't know" is a simplification to a point that is inaccurate and misleading in describing agnosticism.
If you make attacks against the agnostic position, i will defend it; simple.
I'm done with it now.
Bye Chavi.
-
This thread reminds me of this.
Apparently there's some uproar because this song features on the Myers charity Christmas CD thingo. I wonder how people would have reacted had he used his pope song instead :P
/semi thread hijack.
-
It's okay, the thread wasn't exactly going anywhere related to Christmas.
For once I support Chavi, he wasn't exactly being aggressive towards agnostics
-
It's okay, the thread wasn't exactly going anywhere related to Christmas.
For once I support Chavi, he wasn't exactly being aggressive towards agnostics
Yeah pretty much. I guess that we should just lock the thread.