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

The need to preach.

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    The problem here is you assume those are the only options.

    As Sink previous stated so well you can also be ignostic or even an apathetic agnostic.

    Though perhaps I'm not getting your definitions, would you expand upon them and show where either an ignostic or apathetic agnostic would fit in ?

    The issue everyone is taking with the original post is the implication that to be an atheist means you are declaring gnostic belief, ie I know for certain there is no God

    That isn't the case. An agnostic, as defined by Huxley, is someone who does not believe that humans can possess the knowledge to know something is true to a degree of certainty, a claim common in religious circles particularly in Huxley's time.

    It doesn't stop you from being an atheist. If you do not believe theist claims you are an atheist. You do not need to be 100% certain that theists are wrong to do this.

    If you do not believe theist claims you are an atheist. It is not a question of will it rain tomorrow. It is a question of do you believe me when I say it will rain tomorrow.


  • Options
    #63
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Wicknight wrote: »
    If you do not believe theist claims you are an atheist. It is not a question of will it rain tomorrow. It is a question of do you believe me when I say it will rain tomorrow.

    The problem is you assume I can form a belief in the absence of sufficient knowledge.
    But you can't, you must have a kernel of knowledge to begin with to form a belief.


  • Options
    #64
    Carlos_Ray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 685 ✭✭✭Carlos_Ray


    Wicknight wrote: »
    If you do not believe theist claims you are an atheist. You do not need to be 100% certain that theists are wrong to do this.

    If you do not believe theist claims you are an atheist. It is not a question of will it rain tomorrow. It is a question of do you believe me when I say it will rain tomorrow.


    I have never said I don't believe theist claims. I said I was unconvinced by both sides. People seemed to jump at the word "unconvinced" and took it to mean "don't believe in" while it should have been seen as "don't know." I am well aware that atheists have a problem with this stance and are often critical about it. However, its my stance and one that is quite common.

    My main issue so far on this forum is peoples atitude. They are presenting ideas as facts and resorting to patronising tactics in order to push their ideas through. Like everybody here I have read Dawkins and I respect the man. I understand his ideas and criticisms about agnostics, however, i don't suscribe to them. I respect him becuase like most scholars he presents his ideas as ideas. Something that a lot of people here seem to miss.


  • Options
    #65
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    The problem is you assume I can form a belief in the absence of sufficient knowledge.
    Well religious people do it everyday! :pac:


  • Options
    #66
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    axer wrote: »
    Well religious people do it everyday! :pac:

    Touché :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Carlos_Ray wrote: »
    I have never said I don't believe theist claims. I said I was unconvinced by both sides. People seemed to jump at the word "unconvinced" and took it to mean "don't believe in" while it should have been seen as "don't know." I am well aware that atheists have a problem with this stance and are often critical about it. However, its my stance and one that is quite common.
    There is no claim being made by atheists, thats the part you are missing. Atheism is the lack of belief - it is not another belief thus saying you are unconvinced by both sides doesn't make sense. This would make sense only if you thought atheism means "there definitely is no higher power". From my understanding this is what Dawkins was arguing (although I have never read any of his books).


  • Options
    #68
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    I'll be content to live and let live when religious types stop touching up kids, insisting on teaching them nonsense and attempting to subvert our laws to enshrine their particular belief system.

    When that happens, they can do as they please.

    DeV.


  • Options
    #69
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    liamw wrote: »
    Are you starting to understand now?
    Can we play nice and avoid this type of antagonism? Good.
    Carlos_Ray wrote: »
    My main issue so far on this forum is peoples atitude. They are presenting ideas as facts and resorting to patronising tactics in order to push their ideas through.
    Can you offer some examples from other threads?


  • Options
    #70
    Otacon
    Registered Users Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    Atheism vs theism is a binary choice - you are one or the other, neither of which makes any statement about what you 'know', only what you 'believe'.


  • Options
    #71
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    ps: I do find preachy atheists annoying, but then I find preachy people annoying, so perhaps the sub-specification is unnecessary there.

    DeV.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Carlos_Ray wrote: »
    I have never said I don't believe theist claims. I said I was unconvinced by both sides. People seemed to jump at the word "unconvinced" and took it to mean "don't believe in" while it should have been seen as "don't know." I am well aware that atheists have a problem with this stance and are often critical about it. However, its my stance and one that is quite common.

    My main issue so far on this forum is peoples atitude. They are presenting ideas as facts and resorting to patronising tactics in order to push their ideas through. Like everybody here I have read Dawkins and I respect the man. I understand his ideas and criticisms about agnostics, however, i don't suscribe to them. I respect him becuase like most scholars he presents his ideas as ideas. Something that a lot of people here seem to miss.

    Nobody is argueing the ideas.
    What I and many others have done is presented the definitions of the terms, and tried to explain why they should not be confused.

    If that's patronising, so be it. I'd rather be patronising that have people confuse windows and doors just because they feel they're just different ideas of holes in the wall.


  • Options
    #73
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    DeVore wrote: »
    ps: I do find preachy atheists annoying, but then I find preachy people annoying, so perhaps the sub-specification is
    That's probably a good distinction and ties in with the point I made earlier about the same discussions (and personalities) that appear on in most every forum.


  • Options
    #74
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    axer wrote: »
    There is no claim being made by atheists, thats the part you are missing. Atheism is the lack of belief - it is not another belief thus saying you are unconvinced by both sides doesn't make sense. This would make sense only if you thought atheism means "there definitely is no higher power". From my understanding this is what Dawkins was arguing (although I have never read any of his books).

    But to arrive at that belief you have weighted up the facts as you perceive them and come to a conclusion. Or are you saying you can have a belief with out giving it any thought ?
    At some point you've made the decision you know enough to make a statement.


  • Options
    #75
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    But to arrive at that belief you have weighted up the facts as you perceive them and come to a conclusion. Or are you saying you can have a belief with out giving it any thought ?
    At some point you've made the decision you know enough to make a statement.

    How many hours have you spent weighing the pros and cons of the existence of the teapot orbiting Mars, or the potential non-existence of red bicycles in China?
    We believe in a lot of things without giving it much thought, and we disbelieve even more.


  • Options
    #76
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    But to arrive at that belief you have weighted up the facts as you perceive them and come to a conclusion. Or are you saying you can have a belief with out giving it any thought ?
    You can not have a belief without giving it any thought (I hope that makes sense). For instance if you never thought about gods or higher powers you would be a de facto atheist i.e. since you have an absense of belief that a god exists.

    Atheism is the absense of belief not the belief of absense.


  • Options
    #77
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    axer wrote: »
    You can not have a belief without giving it any thought (I hope that makes sense). For instance if you never thought about gods or higher powers you would be a de facto atheist i.e. since you have an absense of belief that a god exists.
    Nope you can only become an atheist once you consider the possibility of gods. Are rocks athiests ?


  • Options
    #78
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    Nope you can only become an atheist once you consider the possibility of gods. Are rocks athiests ?

    This is leading to the old "Are children born atheists" question, is it?


  • Options
    #79
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Hmmm, I don't know. If you never even knew of religion or gods etc. (desert island syndrome) I think you are technically just a person.

    Until such time as you entertain the question given some options, I don't believe you can be labelled anything else.


  • Options
    #80
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    Nope you can only become an atheist once you consider the possibility of gods. Are rocks athiests ?
    Since rocks are incapable of even thinking I don't think your example will work.


  • Options
    #81
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    axer wrote: »
    Since rocks are incapable of even thinking I don't think your example will work.

    But your definition its the absence of belief in gods, or is it now the reasoned rejected of a belief in gods? In which case you can't have a position until you think about it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Dades wrote: »
    Until such time as you entertain the question given some options, I don't believe you can be labelled anything else.
    If you had an absense of belief in a deity then you would be a de facto atheist. I can't see how it would matter that you never thought about it.


  • Options
    #83
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    axer wrote: »
    If you had an absense of belief in a deity then you would be a de facto atheist. I can't see how it would matter that you never thought about it.
    So rocks can be atheists since thinking is unimportant.


  • Options
    #84
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    But your definition its the absence of belief in gods, or is it now the reasoned rejected of a belief in gods? In which case you can't have a position until you think about it.
    You are trying to put a label for a living thing onto something that is not living. How is that going to work?


  • Options
    #85
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    axer wrote: »
    You are trying to put a label for a living thing onto something that is not living. How is that going to work?
    I'm just trying to tighten your defination :)

    So if rocks aren't atheists because they can't think, are dogs atheists because they can?


  • Options
    #86
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    So if rocks aren't atheists because they can't think, are dogs atheists because they can?
    My understanding was that the word was coined up to describe humans.


  • Options
    #87
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    axer wrote: »
    My understanding was that the word was coined up to describe humans.
    Ahh I see, so would there be a different word say if we encountered intelligent life else where who didn't believe in gods ?

    Just to be prepared such I be abducted by god delusion reading aliens some night :D


  • Options
    #88
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭ColmDawson


    Asking whether rocks or dogs can be atheists is somewhat absurd and I can't imagine it could really add to this conversation or to your understanding of the situation.

    However, I'll venture the suggestion that the term 'atheist' can only be appropriately used in relation to a creature that is capable of being a theist.


  • Options
    #89
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    If I may, as a Christian, wade in to the 'need to preach' question, I have a few points to make.

    1. A Christian who does not share the message of the good news of the kingdom is irresponsible and selfish. In order to understand, you need to comprehend that a Christian believes that he has news that will give you everlasting life in happiness. However, a Christian should not be persistant in their evangelisation, e.g. Knocking on a persons door a second time after being told to feck off the first time etc.

    2. Here on the internetzweb, its alot more about pitting ones wits, and shaping ones views. Yes we get into realms of heated debate, frustration and disrespect, but there is very little 'preaching' going on. I would not mix up Christian preaching, with Christians arguing their positions or against others positions. Alot of the arguements are hot air etc, and my own personal testimony about posting is as follows:

    a) Sometimes theres slow days at work, and an arguement, even when you see its lack of worth, can pass the time.
    b) Sometimes you know you are not going to covince anyone you are arguing with, but to enter into certain debates can bring clarity to your own position, and at times tweak it. Sometimes even realise you are wrong:eek:
    c) Sometimes you think you can show someone their error. This is when the frustration can start, and accusations of pig headedness etc can flow.
    d) Sometimes you simply want to be educated in certain topics that others have more knowledge in.

    I agree, that decorum is ignored by everyone at certain points, and some are more guilty than others. I prefer to know where I stand with a poster though, e.g. Zillah, than have to put up with IMO the more annoying, tippy tappy around the bush on eggshells posters who actually feel the same way as someone like Zillah, but mask it in phoney diplomacy etc. Things can sometimes overstep the mark, but then there's the Mods.

    My two cent anyhoo.


  • Options
    #90
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    ColmDawson wrote: »
    However, I'll venture the suggestion that the term 'atheist' can only be appropriately used in relation to a creature that is capable of being a theist.
    Exactly! And someone who has never heard of gods or religion is incapable of being a theist.

    It's all a bit irrelevant, but sure we just can't stop disagreeing and hammering out or own opinions. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Carlos_Ray wrote: »
    I have never said I don't believe theist claims. I said I was unconvinced by both sides.

    There is no "other side" Theists claim something. If you reject what they say you are an atheist. It is pretty simple.
    Carlos_Ray wrote: »
    People seemed to jump at the word "unconvinced" and took it to mean "don't believe in" while it should have been seen as "don't know." I am well aware that atheists have a problem with this stance and are often critical about it. However, its my stance and one that is quite common.

    That is up to you. I'm not saying you are an atheist. But your idea of what an atheist is seems way off.
    Carlos_Ray wrote: »
    My main issue so far on this forum is peoples atitude. They are presenting ideas as facts and resorting to patronising tactics in order to push their ideas through. Like everybody here I have read Dawkins and I respect the man. I understand his ideas and criticisms about agnostics, however, i don't suscribe to them. I respect him becuase like most scholars he presents his ideas as ideas. Something that a lot of people here seem to miss.

    Er you seem to be the only one in an argumentative mood. You came onto this forum telling everyone they were wrong and didn't like them. What exactly did you expect would happen?


Advertisement