an agnostic can believe god is highly probable based on evidence. at when level of probability does he become a theist? what's the tipping point?
Well I'm not talking 4 limbs, two nostrils, eyes and ears. I'm saying the evolved conscious life has the exact same DNA as we do. And explain how you think that the universe would somehow, by chance, have a genetic footprint of all evolved life to be human?
And, should their agnosticism lead them to not believe in god, they would then ALSO be classified as atheist. Don't fight it, Denny -- there is so much power on the dark side of the force...
"And I don't care what atheists want to call themselves. It's not their "right" to define atheism as something they want it to be." Sure it is ... kind of -- as long as their definition does the position justice. They merely "want it" to reflect the actual state of the position as only they (presumably) can understand it (you know, by actually being an atheist). The concept has changed over time as has our understanding of belief, deity, etc. Language changes to reflect the actual underlying understandings that actual people have. It's not the other way round.
HAHA! Bust out the tinfoil hats!! :MARIS61: It's hilarious that somebody with the time to type out that nonsensical rant can't find the time to figure out how to hit the "quote" button on this board.
Honestly, I don't care how people define their own beliefs. Where this matters is when a group of so-called atheists feel the need to ridicule the beliefs of the religious or theists. Sometimes this ridicule comes in the form of chastising the religious for changing their beliefs so that science doesn't disprove their beliefs. But now we're seeing that it is perfectly fine for the atheists to change their beliefs, doctrines or definitions. Some semblance of fairness and getting rid of the hypocrisy is my point in all of this.
How so? What evidence makes such a thing believable? I can think of none. So I'm asking, what is it you have in mind as evidence?
There is no central "doctrine" of atheism aside from not believing in a god, so I'm not sure how it (if it existed) could be subject to change. If there has been a redefinition of the specific meaning of the word "atheist", it is almost certainly as a result of changing nomenclature rather than some kind of systematic change in the beliefs of actual people. There is no holy text, no clergy, no leadership, no church. There's no membership fee, no pledges to recite, no code of behavior to follow, and no regular meetings required. This is why many atheists object to being lumped in with religious groups -- aside from being a belief system, there's not much else it has in common with any organized religion. Now, that said, there are certainly plenty of atheists who promote their beliefs with a religious fervor. I find "evangelical atheists" as annoying as the pushiest of Bible thumpers. I know a lot of atheists who are big fat jerks. On the other hand, most of my family (whom I love dearly) are hardcore, photos-of-the-Pope-on-the-wall Catholics. If you look for the worst in people, you will always find it.
"Honestly, I don't care how people define their own beliefs. Where this matters is when a group of so-called atheists feel the need to ridicule the beliefs of the religious or theists." What is the justification for the idea that all beliefs are beyond ridicule? Why shouldn't we expose unjustified, dangerous beliefs? Lying is bad. Mass lies are massively bad.
Keep speaking in hyperbole. It's much easier for you to be an internet meme with a schtick than to have a reasonable conversation.
No Still be an agnostic as long as there's any way Reason and evidence could change the person's mind.
First of all, I don't question God...or his "motives". If I were to do that, I wouldn't bother worshiping Him in the first place. That would be senseless. God designed people for his pleasure....and to have personal, intimate relationship with Him. This life we're living right now is of the smallest of fractions compared to what eternity will be like in His presence. He left us His Word, the Bible, to relate (as much as we can comprehend it) who He is. He sent His Son as an example and way to have intimate relationship with Him. He sent His Holy Spirit to empower us to live the life He's calling us to live on a day to day basis. He's given us prayer to communicate to and with Him. I know these things to be true in my own life. I share them as witness and testimony to you.
Come on Denny, that's not what I said, nor is it implied in what I said. My opinion on changing concepts is hardly controversial -- I'm assuming that conceptual change happens when whatever the reality is that is comprised by it, begins to fray its edges. Or maybe think of it more in terms of a snake and its skin; fits great at first, somewhat flexible, but eventually must give way to the present snake ... if it's going to continue to "cover it" adequately. Anyway, conceptual change is not what your colorful example depicts -- there's nothing arbitrary about conceptual change as I understand it. Your young nazis seem to have merely taken another name, one that has little to do with their former identity.
(said after re-reading it and editing it) I don't necessarily think what i said was inflammatory, or anything I said was hypocritical. Unless you make it out to be. The same could be true of non religious people too. But I think most non religious people only talk to someone else about religions when that person first addresses it. I never talk to people about their relationship with god or religion, unless they assume I am religious and agree with their mindset OR try to force their beliefs onto me. maybe I should've said I don't like having people define how I think about something or my belief systems. But in most cases, atheists or agnostics aren't defining how I think of being agnostic or atheist. Actually no, looking back, what the hell are you talking about? I said one thing I hate about religious people is when they tell me their version of what I believe as though it's obvious thats how I'm supposed to feel. And then I'm hypocritical for saying don't tell me what to believe, as though I'm telling others what to believe? Seriously? Where did I do that? I treat others beliefs the same way I want to be treated. If you don't believe what I believe thats ok. I don't necessarily believe what you believe, but i don't go around telling you what it is you actually believe (through my eyes). Never have, never will. See? Mags totally got what I was saying. I know that (or I should say, i'm strongly in the belief that) Mags is religious. I'm perfectly ok with it. I enjoy his discussions about religion and science, even if I believe he's mistaken about things. But I don't go "jeesh Mags, let me tell you what I think your beliefs are". He's not trying to change/ redefine what I believe, so it fits what he understands or believes. That's one thing I dislike. I don't understand why people are religious (in as much as in my experiences, I find it hard to accept believing it). I respect that he is.
"First of all, I don't question God...or his "motives"." Of course you don't. But the atheist says there is a very good reason for that -- and that is, you couldn't if you wanted to. Nyuk nyuk nyuk. To them, your stance is just grandstanding -- asserting and mistaking your god language game for something obtaining in the actual world of actual events. That you appear to manage well within this understanding is more a testament to your imaginative powers (which I and many others can personally attest to) than it is to anything real that the concept of deity comprises. I believe it's a psychological fact; sufficiently-vague, harmonious, ultra narratives do provide real comfort to some members of our species. The real problem for atheists is not convincing the religious that they're dreaming, but rather, what to do about their reliance or dependence on such things. I'm wondering if it shouldn't be approached more from the perspective of religious belief as addiction rather than as delusion.
Which of the following did you mean: a) One thing I hate about religious people ... b) I hate it when religious people ...
