Australian Politics Forum - agnosticism vs atheism

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #405 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 12:13am

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 8:00pm:

A word is defined by how people use it.

News flash: "people" generally understand that atheists do not insist that god does not exist. Further "people", generally, understand that Dawkins, for example, is an atheist. Most of those "people", especially those who have read The God Delusion (that's quite a lot of "people"), understand that Dawkins does not insist that god does not exist.

Some other "people", namely theists, do not understand this. Clearly our present company is no exception.

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 8:00pm:

Furthermore, I am not aware of the public holding those people up as famous atheists rather than agnostics...

Then you really should start to pay more attention.

Back to top

IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #406 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 12:29am

tallowood wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 5:39pm:

Einstein was not an atheist he was too intelligent for that. That is what he wrote about atheists:

Quote:

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.

(c) Einstein to an unidentified adressee, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927

Need I point out the bleeding obvious? Einstein is referring to "fanatical atheists", not to atheists generally. He's putting the same shite on fanatical atheists as mozz, helian and myself are heaping on dogmatic or positive atheists.

I'd say that fanatical/positive/dogmatic athiests are one and the same, but I will also point out that Al's target here is Stalin (I would have thought the reference to "opiate of the people" gave that away, obviously not). Stalin, no doubt an atheist, pursued a very pragmatic form of atheism, aimed more at subverting alternative sources of authority than any doctrinal objective.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: agnosticism vs atheism Reply #407 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 1:49am oNE MORE TIME... iT ISN'T THAT DIFFICULT fd. a theist believes an atheist disbelieves an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves. all hold different positions on the existence of a God or Gods.
Back to top	IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #408 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 5:20am

Well we all know that FD has a particular penchant for mischievous obtuseness, don't we Grendel?
If it were another we could assume they may just lack the intellectual ability to grasp even a simple concept, but we know that is not the case with FD, so we must assume then that he is chuckling with perverse pleasure at his portrayal of an ideologically blinded dullard.

So in respect of this probability, and with particular relevance to the cartoon below, I will be starting a new philosophical discussion entitled;
"Why DID the chicken, cross the road?"

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 5^th, 2010 at 5:32am by mozzaok »

farm10.jpg (29 KB | 27 )

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Why DID the chicken, cross the road?
Reply #409 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 5:55am

This deep philosophical question has been troubling many great men throughout history, and so we may deem it worthwhile to add our own interpretations to what is one of life's greatest mysteries.

Here are a few samples of what others have put forward.

George Bush: If we Americans work together, we can find the answer to this chicken thing.

George Bush: We don't care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either for us or against us. There is no middle ground.

Bill Clinton: That depends on how yuh define "road".

Bill Clinton: I did not have improper sexual relations with the chicken (however, I did ask Vernon Jordan to find the chicken a job in New York).

Bill Clinton: The chicken did NOT cross the road. Not a single time. Never. (It was a boulevard).

Hillary Clinton: It was part of a vast right-wing conspiracy against my husband.

Lao Tzu: If I told you, it would prove I don't know.

Moses: And God came down from the heavens, and He said unto the chicken, "Thou shalt cross the road." And the Chicken crossed the road, and there was much rejoicing.

Isaac Newton: Chickens at rest tend to stay at rest. Chickens in motion tend to cross the road.

Darth Vader: To get to the Dark Side.

For a more complete list, go to;
http://www.wussu.com/humour/chicken.htm

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Why DID the chicken, cross the road?
Reply #410 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 8:18am

But did the chicken cross the road?

What does it mean to “cross the road”?

Did it acknowledge the change of terrain under its feet was an indication of its interaction with a thing called ‘road’?

Did it notice it had crossed the road?

Did it have its mind on the crossing of the road?

Did it acknowledge the existence of “the road”?

If not, the chicken did not “cross the road”.

And therefore did not have a goal of "getting to the other side"

Of course, the flying pig wouldn’t have it… “It doesn’t matter whether he knew it was a road”, he protested, “the fact remains he crossed the thing called road. Check the bloody definition of road, bugger ya”, he raged. “And if he crossed the road”, he pontificated, “then he had a bloody reason”. As he glared at the chicken he began to morph into a flying German pig.

“Zo, chicken", he inquisited, "Ve vill resolve ziss little problem vonce und for all. You vill tell me vhy you crossed ze road, or I vill do sings to you zat you vill not like… Oh Ja… I may be a schvine, albeit ein fine flying schvine… But I heff ze instinct und ze perseverance off a certain coyote… Verstehst du? Ya, zatts right, ze instinct off Herr Vyle E Coyote... Und neezer of us is leaving here until you admit you crossed ze road UND you explain VHY you crossed ze road”.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 5^th, 2010 at 8:59am by NorthOfNorth »

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47316 At my desk.	Re: agnosticism vs atheism Reply #411 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 8:22am Quote: News flash: "people" generally understand that atheists do not insist that god does not exist. Yes they do. That's why it is defined that way.
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #412 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 8:42am

sorry FD we have left that conundrum for now, and are applying ourselves to far more important issues, of chickens and roads.

My personal theory is that the bird in question was not a chicken at all, but rather a young rooster, and the natural inclination of young roosters being what it is, sought the company of chickens, and was crossing any and all terrain in search of such company.

However I do think that Helian may be onto something, and if he can just get that damned bird to talk, we may finally get a definitive answer.

There is also a competing theory which sees the question beginning with two chickens, each on different sides of the road, and they both cross to the other side.
In that scenario have we seen any real change in circumstance, or is it as if no chickens crossed the road at all? Spooky.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #413 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 9:22am

The chicken replied "cock a doodle do", because, lo it was true that this was no chicken at all, but a rooster (as another here has intuited).

The pig was apoplectic. He flapped his wings and raised his back right leg, as if to break into a goose-step, and thumped the ground.

"Zatt iss your answer to me, the vorld’s only flying pig?”, he yelled, “Explain yourself, Herr Chikken… Explain ziss ‘cocker-doodle-doo’ “.

“It’s chickadese”, replied the chick… er… rooster.

“Chickadese?”, asked the pig.

“Yup”, answered the rooster.

The pig glowered.

“Do you sink Ich bin schtupid?”, asked the pig. “Do you sink I don’t know vot a chickadee iss? Here let me reed you ze definition”

He a pulled the unabridged Webster Dictionary (the one with all the illustrations) out of his arse, opened it at c (for chickadee) and read aloud “Chickadee - a small tit that has grey feathers, a darker-coloured top to its head, and a distinctive call”.

He slammed the dictionary closed and stared back at the rooster.

“Are you a schmall grey-feathered tit, Herr Chicken?”

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 5^th, 2010 at 9:35am by NorthOfNorth »

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #414 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 10:05am

Paella wrote on Apr 5^th, 2010 at 12:29am:

Need I point out the bleeding obvious? Einstein is referring to "fanatical atheists", not to atheists generally. He's putting the same shite on fanatical atheists as mozz, helian and myself are heaping on dogmatic or positive atheists.

I'd say that fanatical/positive/dogmatic athiests are one and the same, but I will also point out that Al's target here is Stalin (I would have thought the reference to "opiate of the people" gave that away, obviously not). Stalin, no doubt an atheist, pursued a very pragmatic form of atheism, aimed more at subverting alternative sources of authority than any doctrinal objective.

It's good to see sectarianism is alive and well among atheist...

Back to top

IP Logged

mozzaok Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 6741 Melbourne Gender:	Re: agnosticism vs atheism Reply #415 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 10:05am Damn but I like that flying pig. big lols to him.
Back to top	OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma! IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: agnosticism vs atheism Reply #416 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 10:26am “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” Atheist will have to attribute love some other source, will have to make it the manifestaion of something else. (Go ahead, make my day - give it some biological, evolutionary explanation...)
Back to top	IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #417 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 10:36am

Soren wrote on Apr 5^th, 2010 at 10:26am:

“God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” Atheist will have to attribute love some other source, will have to make it the manifestaion of something else. (Go ahead, make my day - give it some biological, evolutionary explanation...)

Love ariseth from empathy. Whomsoever can empathise, will knoweth then love.

And how will he learneth empathy (who knoweth not empathy nor understandeth what, indeed, empathy is)? Alas, his fortune is bad, for empathy must ariseth spontaneous from within... or it will ariseth not at all.

And lo, this is true whether one believeth or disbelieveth that god exists.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 5^th, 2010 at 10:48am by NorthOfNorth »

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

tallowood

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4230

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #418 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 10:44am

Paella wrote on Apr 5^th, 2010 at 12:29am:

tallowood wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 5:39pm:

Einstein was not an atheist he was too intelligent for that. That is what he wrote about atheists:

Quote:

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.

(c) Einstein to an unidentified adressee, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927

Need I point out the bleeding obvious? Einstein is referring to "fanatical atheists", not to atheists generally. He's putting the same shite on fanatical atheists as mozz, helian and myself are heaping on dogmatic or positive atheists.

I'd say that fanatical/positive/dogmatic athiests are one and the same, but I will also point out that Al's target here is Stalin (I would have thought the reference to "opiate of the people" gave that away, obviously not). Stalin, no doubt an atheist, pursued a very pragmatic form of atheism, aimed more at subverting alternative sources of authority than any doctrinal objective.

Quote:

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.

(c)Einstein - Jammer, Max, Einstein and Religion (Princeton University Press, 1999)

Back to top

Reality is a figment of imagination

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #419 - Apr 5^th, 2010 at 11:09am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 5^th, 2010 at 10:36am:

Soren wrote on Apr 5^th, 2010 at 10:26am:

“God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” Atheist will have to attribute love some other source, will have to make it the manifestaion of something else. (Go ahead, make my day - give it some biological, evolutionary explanation...)

Love ariseth from empathy. Whomsoever can empathise, will knoweth then love.

And how will he learneth empathy (who knoweth not empathy nor understandeth what, indeed, empathy is)? Alas, his fortune is bad, for empathy must ariseth spontaneous from within... or it will ariseth not at all.

And lo, this is true whether one believeth or disbelieveth that god exists.

Fine. You tell your wife on your wedding anniversary that you empathise with her....

Grin

Back to top

IP Logged