Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Is there a name for me?
-
12-05-2006 12:51am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59281
Yes she is, in my definition.Karoma wrote:As far as simple titles go: You are 'agnostic'.
And no, Avril Lavigne is not a god(dess).
Yeah, that was the simple answer but just wondering is there specific names for everybodies fanciful thoughts.
how about you just call yourself Tar.Aldarion*, and not worry about pigeon-holing yourself into a religious/philosophical type?
*that seems to be working out well for you so far
I think yee miss the point, sorry.Why are you looking for a name?
I call myself an atheist as I don't believe in a God and I don't believe anything can be defined as a God ( Robbie fowler excluded ) but I don't spend too much time trying to difine myself. Whats the point in reaching a conclusion on atheism / agnosticism / humanist?
What have you actually achieved once you decide on what to call yourself?
Are you more enlightened after you decide on your label?
Just get on with your godless life and make sure your at mass on saturday to worship Robbie Fowler as he inspires Liverpool to victory in the cup final even though he wont actually be playing. ( Fowler works in mysterious ways )
I do not *care* what somebody calls me and am not not worried about pigeon-holing yourself into a religious/philosophical type.
I am just curious/interested for no particular reason.
I will have achieved nothing clown bag, nothing but satisfaction for my weird thoughts. (:
Man I'm tired, forgot I even wrote this thread.
I suppose agnostic will have to do.
Oh yes and avril is ordering a jihad on the fowler's.
/Me unsheaths sword.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59281
The definition of atheist vs agnostic is another tricky thing for me. Most atheists
fall into the agnostic column along the lines I believe.
Bah.
What would be the difference between a weak atheist and an agnostic?
You can see I'm terribly desperate to label myself.
I do like the idea of Tar.Aldarion's...
Yes, that is what I would describe myself as mostly.I'd go for "atheistic agnostic". Mind you, I don't discount the possibility of God, just the possibility of a worshippable one, and I just call myself an atheist, since I don't believe in a God. I've never seen the point of denying the existence of something that either doesn't exist or ought to be ignored.
Did you say you had a sword?
cordially,
Scofflaw
You would seem to believe a lot along the same lines as myself, but call yourself something else based on a different reasoning system.
Yes, I do indeed have a sword. Tis a beauty too. 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw wrote:The sword's a bit of a giveaway, anyway.
Based on other posts, its a done deal. Welcome Tartheist Aldarion Maximus0 -
-
Tar - have you considered the possibility you are an "agnathiest"?
Re what you are saying of "gods" - I have long contended that the distinctions between atheism and agnosticism have everything to do with the definition of "god", rather than the words themselves.
If you consider a god to be simply anything that may have had an influence in the creation of life or matter than you are probably leaning toward agnosticism. On the other hand, if you apply more stringent tests as to what actually qualifies as a "god", then atheism is a more suitable shoe size.
And as what constitutes a "god" is very subjective - so must your pigeonhole be.
Either way we're all going to burn in hell. 0 -
-
The Atheist wrote:Tar - have you considered the possibility you are an "agnathiest"?
Re what you are saying of "gods" - I have long contended that the distinctions between atheism and agnosticism have everything to do with the definition of "god", rather than the words themselves.
If you consider a god to be simply anything that may have had an influence in the creation of life or matter than you are probably leaning toward agnosticism. On the other hand, if you apply more stringent tests as to what actually qualifies as a "god", then atheism is a more suitable shoe size.
And as what constitutes a "god" is very subjective - so must your pigeonhole be.
Either way we're all going to burn in hell.
Damn it Athiest I was about to post exactly the same thing .. you always do that .. damn you!
Anyway Tar, without repeating Atheist to much (damn you!), this thing that might have created the universe, why would that be a "god" to you as opposed to simply an alien, even if that alien exists outside of your universe?
To me its like the distinction between a man and a king. A man is a man because of the way nature defined him. He is a man because of his natural make up, instead of a cow or a fox or a whale. A king on the other hand is a king only in the minds of the humans that follow him. There is nothing in nature that makes a man a king. It is simply a level of status invented by humans.
What we do with the idea of God is a bit like assuming the "king" bit without knowing the "man" bit first.
The concept of a god originated before humans understood science, so we imagined a supernatural being that can basically do anything it wants. But really this idea wasn't put through a lot of real world logic. A God was represented by something that is like a human but can do what ever he wants when ever he wants. And that was it. The idea of a "God" becomes harder to define when you start to look at it scientifically. A God might be able to control the laws of this universe, can he control things outside of this universe? What is he made of? Where did he come from? Where does he exist now? Slowly the concept of a "God" begins to paradox itself. To me its not really an idea that can actually exist, because it is cyclical and paradoxical, and it raises more questions that it can answer.
This to me is why I can say for certain "God" doesn't exist, because the concept of a god is invalid in the first place.
I am totally open to the posibility that some intelligence created the universe before the big bang. But why would I call that a "God"? What ever it is, it isn't a god, because the idea of a god doesn't make sense. The concept of a god is simply a human invention of the imagination, from a time long ago when humans didn't really think things through.
If something created the universe he/it is what he/it is, and we certainly don't know what that is.0 -
-
LOL you'll need to be quicker to preempt me on a Friday afternoon in work!Wicknight wrote:Damn it Athiest I was about to post exactly the same thing .. you always do that .. damn you!0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59281
Mine smells quite nice.Scofflaw wrote:
The sword's a bit of a giveaway, anyway.
I made my decision last night, see sig. We are currently recruiting.The Atheist wrote:Tar - have you considered the possibility you are an "agnathiest"?
This is exactly the problem I have, spot on. I don't know what I would call a god, possibly nothing whatsoever, which would make me an atheist by default. Ah pidgeonholes...'Catch the Pidgeon' was a cartoon on tv years ago, it is much deeper to me now.Re what you are saying of "gods" - I have long contended that the distinctions between atheism and agnosticism have everything to do with the definition of "god", rather than the words themselves.
If you consider a god to be simply anything that may have had an influence in the creation of life or matter than you are probably leaning toward agnosticism. On the other hand, if you apply more stringent tests as to what actually qualifies as a "god", then atheism is a more suitable shoe size.
And as what constitutes a "god" is very subjective - so must your pigeonhole be.
My nature leans towards atheistic agnostic but my sword implies atheism. One day i will choose, maybe in a few decades. I'll pop on to drag up the thread.
I plan to live forever, well actually, since I'm not sure if anything is actually alive. Depends on my definition of life. (:Either way we're all going to burn in hell.
I know dear, I get told that every day, and a lot of the time it is by you.bluewolf wrote:tarry, you're just strange
See my reply to The Atheist.Wicknight wrote:Damn it Athiest I was about to post exactly the same thing .. you always do that .. damn you!
Anyway Tar, without repeating Atheist to much (damn you!), this thing that might have created the universe, why would that be a "god" to you as opposed to simply an alien, even if that alien exists outside of your universe?
To me its like the distinction between a man and a king. A man is a man because of the way nature defined him. He is a man because of his natural make up, instead of a cow or a fox or a whale. A king on the other hand is a king only in the minds of the humans that follow him. There is nothing in nature that makes a man a king. It is simply a level of status invented by humans.
What we do with the idea of God is a bit like assuming the "king" bit without knowing the "man" bit first.
The concept of a god originated before humans understood science, so we imagined a supernatural being that can basically do anything it wants. But really this idea wasn't put through a lot of real world logic. A God was represented by something that is like a human but can do what ever he wants when ever he wants. And that was it. The idea of a "God" becomes harder to define when you start to look at it scientifically. A God might be able to control the laws of this universe, can he control things outside of this universe? What is he made of? Where did he come from? Where does he exist now? Slowly the concept of a "God" begins to paradox itself. To me its not really an idea that can actually exist, because it is cyclical and paradoxical, and it raises more questions that it can answer.
This to me is why I can say for certain "God" doesn't exist, because the concept of a god is invalid in the first place.
I am totally open to the posibility that some intelligence created the universe before the big bang. But why would I call that a "God"? What ever it is, it isn't a god, because the idea of a god doesn't make sense. The concept of a god is simply a human invention of the imagination, from a time long ago when humans didn't really think things through.
If something created the universe he/it is what he/it is, and we certainly don't know what that is.
I must do some sould searching to figure out if anything that could exist would be a labelled a godfor me.
Is there anything that you would consider to be a god?
Let's say something has existed forever, it is 'all powerful'(which doesn't really make sense) and created everything etc with otherly godly attributes like alchemy+5 and such, would that be a god or an alien to you?
I'm not sure.
It really does come down to elusive definition.
For all I know, I am a god, well to me. Don't satanists believe that?
Doesn't sound bad. 0 -
-
Tar.Aldarion wrote:It really does come down to elusive definition.
For all I know, I am a god, well to me.
Doesn't sound bad.
Excellent, dear Tartheist, you found a jewel.
A God creates!
Do you create?:rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59281
What boons will my godess grant me?clown bag wrote:Young Tartheist Aldariongnostic Maximus
I want recognition for founding your new religion. As your infallible leader I expect regular cash donations for the upkeep of our non existent church. Also something similar to the pope mobile, my own country and my own army. As a group all members will worship Robbie Fowler as our collective God and individually we may also have one personal object of worship. I declare Avril Lavigne your personal goddess. My personal Goddess is Jolene Blalock (sub commander TPol) it is logical! Our personal gods are subservient to us however our communal God Robbie Fowler is all powerful and must be worship for at 90 minutes every week in two 45 minute sessions. There are four cakes.
unfaithfully
clownbagnostic maximus.
Maybe a special event?
http://www.grabow.biz/Contemporaryh/AvrilLavigne.htm
Haha T'Pol, I should have known.
[quot=Asiaprod]Excellent, dear Tartheist, you found a jewel.
A God creates!
Do you create?(horrendous smily removed for the benifit of the viewer)[/quote]
I create now and again. Sometimes, when I am not concentrating enough on the task at hand, I nearly create a human by accident.0 -
I'd consider myself "agnostic, with a leaning towards atheism"! I don't believe in any gods, but I accept that I cannot prove that none exist, so it'd be naive (for want of a better word) of me to just call myself an atheist. It's as arrogant to believe steadfastly that there isn't a god, as it is to believe that there is. Is agnosticism the only logical/rational 'belief', do ye think?
*waits to be owned by the uber-atheists* 0 -
-
DaveMcG wrote:Is agnosticism the only logical/rational 'belief', do ye think?
*waits to be owned by the uber-atheists*
If you accept that then you pretty much have to be "agnostic" about pretty much anything that humanity can possibly imagine, which to be honest is a bit silly in my view.
Do small green dwarfs with spiders for ears that communicate through the songs of Robbie Willians live at the bottom of my garden?
No, but how can you be sure for certain they don't?
The answer is you can be certain they don't because you know I just made up the idea in my head.
Likewise, you can be certain gods don't exists when you look at the origin of the concept and realise that it comes purely from the human imagination.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59281
Most annoying creatures ever in your garden. Your example is different, you are taking things we can know and saying they are not true. Hey, maybe it is true? You can give many unlikely scenarios and eventually one will be true. That is what it means, you can't just dismiss everything, matter of fact, and people have different definitions of a god. If something is extremely unlikely it does not mean it is not the case.
Anyway, depending on your definition of a god, then one could well exist. It does not matter that humans made up fake ones as an origin, that does not take away from the case that there may be 'a' god or gods ( that people would consider to be godly) in existance.
I think it is a little arrogant to say a god somewhere does not definitely exist, however it is perfectly agreeable to believe that and err towards it.
'Certainty' does not exist really, unless you believe nothing can be a god. This then comes back to what one defines a god to be.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
But using the analogy of something that has a possibility by virtue of any form of evidence, is contrary to the point. The point of the dragon analogy is that there is no basis in logic to believe it exists.Scofflaw wrote:Exactly.
The credentials of US politics or the Drake Equation could be viewed as evidence of sorts for JFK or aliens. 0 -
The Atheist wrote:But using the analogy of something that has a possibility by virtue of any form of evidence, is contrary to the point. The point of the dragon analogy is that there is no basis in logic to believe it exists.
The credentials of US politics or the Drake Equation could be viewed as evidence of sorts for JFK or aliens.
There's no concrete undisputed evidence of aliens or a JFK conspiracy - same for God. People believe in these things without evidence, primarily by reading the "testimony" of others - same for God. Such testimonies find large audiences and have inspired a huge body of literature/media - same for God. People feel they personally have been affected by aliens, or experienced aliens - same for God.
Any of these things true of green gnomes? Nope. Fair analogy? Nope. It's worse than that - virtually everywhere humans are found, there is some sort of building dedicated to some deity or other.
There is no "basis in logic" for pizza. Or for anything much, really. That's why philosophers don't build bridges (although they are frequently found making, or at least serving, pizza). The attempt to found philosophy on a basis free from a priori assumptions, and get somewhere useful from there by logic, has not been fruitful.
People are addicted to the idea that logic will justify their position rather than their opponent's, when both are equally logical, but have different assumptions. The existence/non-existence of God can only be established by observation, because it is an assumption, and no amount of non-observation disproves a God - it can merely disprove specifically described deities, or aspects of a deity.
Once a theist has made the assumption that God exists, they can build a perfectly logical case from there (although they usually don't). The assumption of God's existence is (pardon me!) the rock on which they build their church.
The atheist does not assume God exists, and therefore his position appears more justifiable, as involving the fewer assumptions. It does not, however, discredit the theistic position, because it does not address it - that is, it does not disprove the theistic assumption, it just doesn't make it.
Now, that leaves the atheist ahead by a whisker until we come to explaining the universe. To the atheist, it looks like his position (assuming a scientific worldview) wins again, because it does not involve this unnecessary assumption of God's existence, but explains the universe.
To the theist, on the other hand, it appears completely to the contrary - the scientific "explanation" of the universe involves hundreds of assumptions (uniformitarianism being the big one, causality being another, natural causes being another, the world being entirely real and so on) that the theist does not have to make. Not only that, but the scientific worldview does not explain other "facts" like Man's Special Place In The Cosmos, and is therefore clearly faulty.
As an atheist, with a scientific worldview, one claims that these are small assumptions compared to assuming the existence of God - but there is no independent way of measuring the size of assumptions. Both sides are content that the evidence supports their position, because they weigh and interpret evidence differently. Neither side can compel the other to "come in", because the root assumptions are not disprovable, either logically or empirically.
Dragons and pizzas are not logically differentiable, but one has evidentiary support.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Excellent post, I enjoyed every bit of that. Thats a keeper. Now lay all that on Capt. Capslock.Scofflaw wrote:All of the above..... 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59281
Indeed that is what I decided, basically.
There are other niggling things like the definition of a god and if something can actually be a god to me, if the answer was no to that, I would be an atheist. However, I like to keep things simple, obviously, agnostic will do just fine. 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement