La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 What do you mean by moderate and extreme? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Good question LDV..... Can you define it for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 How are you applying the terms in forming your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Wrong. Look up the meaning of the word and its roots. Keith - Spook is right insofar as the origin of the word "religion" is from words meaning "to bear under". It can therefore be used to describe any system of belief (including "non-belief", which is itself merely a form of belief) which determines peoples' modes of thought and action. The OED definition is unduly narrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 That's just nonsense. On so many different levels. In which case you should have no problem in elucidating your claim. Keigmeister does have some prima facie evidence for his claim so it is up to you to show where and why such evidence is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 including "non-belief", which is itself merely a form of beliefHow do you work this one out? If the person was a gnostic atheist then you'd be right. But no in respect of an agnostic atheist. The non-believer who says they do not know does not have a belief in the sense of what is true or false. In which case you should have no problem in elucidating your claim. Keigmeister does have some prima facie evidence for his claim so it is up to you to show where and why such evidence is flawed. If so, I think I must have missed it. Not seen Keigmeister's reference to evidence at all, apart from 'the Bible tells me so', but it would be presumptuous to assume what exactly the evidence is until it comes from the horse's mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 How do you work this one out? If the person was a gnostic atheist then you'd be right. But no in respect of an agnostic atheist. The non-believer who says they do not know does not have a belief in the sense of what is true or false. You are making a basic error in understanding that belief must refer to some God or other. A belief in something is simply that - it can be belief in anything, not just a God of some sort. If so, I think I must have missed it. Not seen Keigmeister's reference to evidence at all, apart from 'the Bible tells me so', but it would be presumptuous to assume what exactly the evidence is until it comes from the horse's mouth. You miss so much, LDV - or at least, having seen it, deny it. Try starting with s28 repeal and then try reviewing the news! You will not get Keith of the hook with this sort of lame response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 You are making a basic error in understanding that belief must refer to some God or other. A belief in something is simply that - it can be belief in anything, not just a God of some sort.A belief is holding something to be true. The non-believer either thinks it is false or does not know. You miss so much, LDV - or at least, having seen it, deny it. Try starting with s28 repeal and then try reviewing the news! You will not get Keith of the hook with this sort of lame response. You have lost me. I thought you were talking about the requirement to evaluate Keigmeister's evidence for his Christian belief. But I have not read anything from him saying, "This is why I believe...". With this being case, it would be unfair to him to presume why he believes. All I have read is reference to the Bible, in which case I think that is extremely evidence to believe in the Christian God, but maybe there is more to support his belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 A belief is holding something to be true. The non-believer either thinks it is false or does not know. But if you think something to be so you believe that i.e. you do not believe God exists so you believe that there is no God. That belief can influence you just as much as believing that God exists would. You have lost me. I thought you were talking about the requirement to evaluate Keigmeister's evidence for his Christian belief. But I have not read anything from him saying, "This is why I believe...". With this being case, it would be unfair to him to presume why he believes. All I have read is reference to the Bible, in which case I think that is extremely evidence to believe in the Christian God, but maybe there is more to support his belief. All I am saying is that, as a bare statement of fact, Keigmeister is correct in his assertion. I was saying nothing about his religious beliefs, which, as you say, are for him to annunciate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 But the agnostic atheist does not think something to be. The atheist is not making a claim about a God NOT existing, only that they have no evidence or no good evidence with which to form a belief. That's not belief. (In the case of the Christian God, however, I do make an exception for myself, as many others do, by saying that I am quite certain that the Christian God is a lot of foolish nonsense. I do make the claim that he doesn't exist and thus have a false belief.) Influence is not really relevant in terms of talking about what constitutes beliefs. But yes, one's idea of what is true, what is false, and what is uncertain will have incalculate influence over one's decisions and one's view of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 All I am saying is that, as a bare statement of fact, Keigmeister is correct in his assertion. I was saying nothing about his religious beliefs, which, as you say, are for him to annunciate.Oh I see. You think atheism itself is somehow forcing a homosexual agenda? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 That's just nonsense. On so many different levels. In which case you should have no problem in elucidating your claim. Keigmeister does have some prima facie evidence for his claim so it is up to you to show where and why such evidence is flawed. Keigmeister stated... atheism is trying to force the homosexual agenda on everyone in society including children... He has not suggested any "prima facie evidence" at all. I'm an atheist, I don't know what the "homosexual agenda" is? No one gave me a copy when I joined the atheist religion. You don't get much for your subscription, in fact, as cults go, it's a bit crap really, I haven't even been promised ever lasting life or reincarnation. If by his evidence, we assume your comment about Section 28 repeal, then I would agree that I thought that was a horrible, prejudicial, discriminatory piece of right wing legislation and was delighted to see it binned. A teenager who was struggling to come to terms with their own sexuality could not discuss this with a teacher because of this legislation? That they should be shunned for even raising the subject? Yes, it deserved to be repealed. But Section 28 was your 'evidence'. Keigmeister simply made a 'statement' as if it were fact. If you and Keigmeister's assertion is that atheists are more tolerant of people, less oppressive, more willing to accept individuals and to allow them choices within the law, then yes, I'll sign up to that. If the 'atheist agenda' is one of not hating people because of their colour, culture, religion or sexuality, then that's an agenda I'll subscribe to and I'll find out where my copy is (it probably got lost in the post). Wrong. Look up the meaning of the word and its roots. Keith - Spook is right insofar as the origin of the word "religion" is from words meaning "to bear under". It can therefore be used to describe any system of belief (including "non-belief", which is itself merely a form of belief) which determines peoples' modes of thought and action. The OED definition is unduly narrow. So you are saying the OED is wrong? I believe that the Conservative government is good for Britain and I actively support them by going to meetings, distributing leaflets and paying them a donation each month. Is that a religion? It would appear to fit your wider definition? What about a cult? What differentiates a cult from a religion when using your wide definition? I accept (being an atheist I easily accept lots of things) that their are differing definitions of the word 'religion'. Spook told me I was "wrong" in the definition that I used and told me to look it up. I looked it up. I agree with/was using it in the OED sense. You will not get Keith of the hook... I didn't realise I was on the hook! phew! I'm glad LDV spotted the hook and tried to get me off before it did any serious damage! You see how helpful us atheists are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Keigmeister said "Atheism has resulted in the mass murder of million of unborn baby boys and girls, atheism is trying to legalise suicide, atheism is trying to force the homosexual agenda on everyone in society including children". On a prima facie case, this is correct. Religions are not advocating abortion, the legitimation of suicide or the acceptance of homosexual behaviour. These things are being pushed by the non-religious. Whether you think that these are good things or bad things is another matter. As a bare statement of fact it seems to be perfectly correct. What I think about it all is irrelevant to whether or not Keigmeister's statement is correct, at least on a prima facie basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 But the agnostic atheist does not think something to be. The atheist is not making a claim about a God NOT existing, only that they have no evidence or no good evidence with which to form a belief. That's not belief. The atheist believes something not to be - this is just as much a belief as believing something to be is. An agnostic says they do not know whether some claim or other is correct or not - this is itself a statement of the belief that "I do not know". Beliefs are what our minds tell us is the case and not knowing is as much a belief as believing or not believing something is. Everything is belief, one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Keith - as I have already said, what you, I or Keigmeister thinks about these things, the push for abortion, euthanasia, etc. has come from the non-religious side. The issue of the rights and wrongs is another matter entirely. I am not saying that the OED is wrong - it is right as far as it goes but is incomplete in that it restricts the use of the word to worship of a deity of some sort and matters related thereto - from its origins the word "religious" can have relevance to matters not involving a deity of some sort. Ref your list: [*]He has not suggested any "prima facie evidence" at all. [*]I'm an atheist, I don't know what the "homosexual agenda" is? No one gave me a copy when I joined the atheist religion. You don't get much for your subscription, in fact, as cults go, it's a bit crap really, I haven't even been promised ever lasting life or reincarnation. [*]If by his evidence, we assume your comment about Section 28 repeal, then I would agree that I thought that was a horrible, prejudicial, discriminatory piece of right wing legislation and was delighted to see it binned. A teenager who was struggling to come to terms with their own sexuality could not discuss this with a teacher because of this legislation? That they should be shunned for even raising the subject? Yes, it deserved to be repealed. But Section 28 was your 'evidence'. Keigmeister simply made a 'statement' as if it were fact. Just because he didn't quote his evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist - it clearly does. The second and third of your items do not relate directly to the veracity or otherwise of Keigmeister's statement but could form the basis of one or more other threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.