Author
|
Topic: Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 68 of 165 (616664)
05-23-2011 8:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Panda 05-23-2011 8:21 PM
|
|
Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Well, all your examples in the OP are about the existance of jesus. No they weren't. Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to: | | Message 66 by Panda, posted 05-23-2011 8:21 PM | | Panda has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 69 by Panda, posted 05-23-2011 8:27 PM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Having said that... I think you go one step to far in lumping them all together in some sort of group. This thread isn't about all atheists lumped together in a certain group. As the OP states, this thread is about extremist atheists, anti-theists, religion haters, etc. This thread is about a particular subset of atheists.
I'm also not quite sure what you mean with "irrational beliefs"... I gave two examples in the OP of irrationality. Positions that are neither evidenced nor rational can, in my opinion, only be called 'beliefs'. You're free to call them whatever you want, though. Jon Love your enemies!
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 89 of 165 (616765)
05-24-2011 11:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by crashfrog 05-24-2011 11:01 AM
|
|
Historical Jesus
Modulous linked to a thread for discussing this further.
Reconstructing the Historical Jesus Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to: | | Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 11:01 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 11:17 AM | | Jon has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 106 of 165 (616854)
05-24-2011 6:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 104 by Modulous 05-24-2011 5:18 PM
|
|
Re: weakly supported suggests no strong opinions
It's hardly a controversial proposition, and one that seems strange to want to outright deny. Strange indeed! And one purpose of this thread was to examine the motives of people who go to such trouble to outright deny such things as an historical Jesus.
I also note that it is possible to examine the same evidence and conclude otherwise It's certainly possible for there to have been no Jesus. But the militant (often shoddy) reasoning used by some folk to prove there was no Jesus suggests a deeper motive than a search for some sort of truth.
It seems that in this regard, Jon has hoisted himself on his own petard. Boom! Jon Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to: | | Message 104 by Modulous, posted 05-24-2011 5:18 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
If the above is all you meant (that atheists do not have a monopoly on rationality), then it seems to me that you are simply stating the obvious. Yes, but the things that irrational atheists are irrational about tend to have a type, or so I have observed. I'm curious if anyone has observed likewise. Love your enemies!
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
believe and know = gnostic theist believe on faith alone = agnostic theist not believe and know = gnostic atheist not believe and not know = agnostic atheist. Perfect breakdown. We use a two-word identifier to discuss belief and knowledge. Thus a person is (Gnostic, Agnostic) and (Theist, Atheist). I personally think that claiming gnosticism on any of these is ridiculous, but that is not the type of irrationality I was thinking of when I started this thread; there have, afterall, been many threads about that sort of thing. Jon Love your enemies!
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
What if you don't know what you believe? Then you're all out agnostic I suppose: you know not even yourself. Love your enemies!
Replies to this message: | | Message 118 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-25-2011 1:20 PM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 148 of 165 (618755)
06-06-2011 1:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 147 by AZPaul3 06-06-2011 12:53 AM
|
|
Re: Guilty of Heresy in Athiest Court
So if we hold that there is a galactic deity in the image of a jovian planet made entirely of Philadelphia Brand Cream Cheese (with chives) and she made and controls all life in this galaxy while her sister Cream Cheese planets do so in other galaxies and each millennium they all get together to play croquet in the eighth dimension then you think we should be agnostic toward this deity? Agnosticism is a position about knowledge. If we have no knowledge of such a deity, then why should we not be agnostic on the matter?
Are we meant to give due credence to every whim that pops into every human mind? Of course not, and that's not what agnosticism is about. Jon Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to: | | Message 147 by AZPaul3, posted 06-06-2011 12:53 AM | | AZPaul3 has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 149 by AZPaul3, posted 06-06-2011 2:00 AM | | Jon has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 151 of 165 (620020)
06-13-2011 8:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 149 by AZPaul3 06-06-2011 2:00 AM
|
|
Re: Guilty of Heresy in Athiest Court
If we have no knowledge of such a thing then why entertain any notion of efficacy? Who's entertaining anything?
Is this not giving due credence to my whim and by extension then to every whim? Of course not. And if the credence is 'due', as you describe it, what would be wrong if we were giving it? Jon Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to: | | Message 149 by AZPaul3, posted 06-06-2011 2:00 AM | | AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: definition
I personally think that believing in invisible all-powerful beings to be the irrational belief. So very true. So very true. On a side note: Have any of the last couple pages of discussion been related to the topic? Jon Love your enemies!
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: definition
How is discussing atheism not related to a topic that is criticizing atheism? The discussion seems to be centering on distinctions between atheism, agnosticism, and non-theism. But this could never be on topic, since the OP clearly lays out extreme atheism/anti-theism as the relevant group. Fence riders just don't fall into this category. Why is there so much discussion going into them? Jon Love your enemies!
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: definition
Kinda hard to discuss extreme atheism when you can't pinpoint what an atheist is or is not. But can we not agree on what an extreme atheist/anti-theist is? I'd think this would be a rather clear classification, it being too far from the fence to warrant uncertainty. Jon Love your enemies!
|