Australian Politics Forum - Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #360 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:46am

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 8:59am:

muso wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 11:32pm:

Quote:

Semantics again - ok - I believe that I will run 5km in 20 minutes, but I concede the possibility that I might not.

It sounds to me like you don't really believe.

Translate belief into probability, because that's what it really comes down to. There is a high probability that I will achieve that goal, but that probability is not equal to 1.

Quote:

I consider that particular hypothetical position to be one version of theism.

You made it sound personal earlier.

I'd suggest that most people who really think about it would concur that mass psycho-social phenomena exist. There is even a hint of this in some established religions. (God moves in mysterious ways)
I don't have any problem with this brand of Theism, and I don't have any problem with Deism either. Both make sense to me.
Quote:

Quote:

The question is - Who gets to define the various possible types of Gods implicit in theistic belief? - because clearly all conceptual gods don't have the same properties.

I think it makes sense to leave that up to the theist in question. Though anyone can of course - as Dawkins did. It just gets a bit pointless any other way.

I'm not suggesting that a person with a different view should try to define somebody else's worldview. So I can define myself as a theist any way I choose? If that's the case, it breaks down the definitions and makes generic definitions such as 'theist' and 'atheist' next to useless on their own.

Quote:

Quote:

Is there some universal defender of the term "theist" that says that my psycho-social god is not theistic?

I don't think it is theistic. It sounds more like cultural meme theory. If it includes some kind of supernatural connection between all the minds involved then I would call it spirituality. You would need to ascribe something more to the phenomenon before I would label it a diety.

Cool. Thanks for your personal opinion, but you already said we should leave it to the theist rather than let somebody else interfere.

Quote:

Quote:

Maybe you can glimpse my position that the terms "atheist" and "theist" are not very useful in themselves.

The labels have made Helian et al very careful to denounce any belief that God does not exist.

Some paradigms can create artificial barriers between people with similar beliefs.

Quote:

Quote:

So, what is the big deal about 'atheists' being defined as those who reject or decline to adopt any of the religious theologies professed by others!?

It fails to distinguish atheism and agnosticism.

Why would you want to? They are not mutually exclusive positions. It's not as if it's anything new. People have been calling themselves agnostic atheists since before I was born.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:00am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51059
At my desk.

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #361 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:32am

Muso, back to the earlier point, I don't think many people make the distinction between believing and knowing. They know what they believe and believe what they know. It would be difficult for someone to know that God might exist and still believe God does not exist. People who believe that God does not exist would be unlikely to acknowledge the possibility they are wrong. I cannot see a meaningful distinction between knowing and believing that flying pigs don't exist.

Also, if agnostic is entirely separate from atheism, what is the term for someone who is not agnostic? Gnostic?

Quote:

I'm not suggesting that a person with a different view should try to define somebody else's worldview. So I can define myself as a theist any way I choose? If that's the case, it breaks down the definitions and makes generic definitions such as 'theist' and 'atheist' next to useless on their own.

I was referring to the 'definition' of specific gods or religions, not terms like theism or atheism.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Grey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5341 Gender:	Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation? Reply #362 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:53am Freediver, you're not answering the question. Quote: Freediver which of these statements do you most agree with? :- A) God exists. B) I believe God exists.
Back to top	"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51059 At my desk.	Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation? Reply #363 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 11:15am You are correct Grey.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Equitist Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9632 NSW	Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation? Reply #364 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 11:29am I do not believe that any supreme being has ever existed. I suspect that many people who don't adopt any religion, but believe in the possibility of such a being, are simply hedging their doGfearing bets on the much-touted wrath of deities - especially in the afterlife...
Back to top	Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer! IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22292
A cat with a view

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #365 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:27pm

muso wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:47pm:

Well that's what it's called. Would you accept a Hindu referring to Ganesha as a god, or would you refer to that person as an atheist?

No.

Not an atheist, .....just mistaken. Wink

Quote:

I know what you believe. What I'm asking you is if you accept the right of people from other religions to worship their own gods.

I do.

Caveat;
As i have said elsewhere;

"I believe in an open society, where people are allowed to make their own moral choices, within limits [within limits where the 'inclination' and actions of 'some', are not injurious to others]."

Quote:

Do you accept that the forest gods of Togo should be referred to as gods?

I don't believe that the piece of wood has any magical powers such as you ascribe to Jehovah, but I do accept that some people call them gods, that they have every right to do so, and that makes them theists (because they believe in something (anything) that they call a god)

A person who believes in the power of such a forest god is still a theist, and a person who does not believe in that forest god, or any other deity including Minerva, Ganesha and Jehovah, is an atheist.

I believe that gods manifest themselves as mass psycho social phenomena in a similar way to which the stockmarket has influences on individuals. There is nothing that could be described as supernatural in my belief. I also state that this is a religion of mine. Does that fact uniquely make me a theist in your view?

I would not regard the forest gods of Togo as god's, because [as you know] i believe that my own 'imaginary friend' is the God of creation.

But if the people of Togo wish to worship their own 'imaginary friends' [the forest gods of Togo], then that is their choice.

And i would concede that such people 'could' be referred to as theists.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Prevailing

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7169
Stop Men

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #366 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:38pm

Equitist wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 11:29am:

I do not believe that any supreme being has ever existed.

I suspect that many people who don't adopt any religion, but believe in the possibility of such a being, are simply hedging their doGfearing bets on the much-touted wrath of deities - especially in the afterlife...

As you stated - that is your "belief" and you have no more credibility than anyone else talking about the unknowable - to your flat rejection of the unknowable is illogical.

Back to top

I condemn Male Violence Against Women
The Government Supports Gynocide
There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22292
A cat with a view

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #367 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:51pm

muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:41am:

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:33am:

Just to clarify:

So a large number of atheists believe that God does not exist - in any form - yet also concede the possibility that God does exist?

Yes. I think it could probably be expressed as a probability. For the "perceived probability" that there is a god, most people lie on a continuum between 0 and 1.

Those people above 0.5 are theists. Those below 0.5 are atheists. There are very few that are exactly 1 or exactly 0.

LOL

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #368 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:54pm

Yadda wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:27pm:

But if the people of Togo wish to worship their own 'imaginary friends' [the forest gods of Togo], then that is their choice.

And i would concede that such people 'could' be referred to as theists.

Yadda,

All good. By the way, I would never use that term myself - at least not nowadays.

I also don't find anything irrational or crazy about your beliefs. I just don't happen to share them.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #369 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:57pm

Yadda wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:51pm:

muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:41am:

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:33am:

Just to clarify:

So a large number of atheists believe that God does not exist - in any form - yet also concede the possibility that God does exist?

Yes. I think it could probably be expressed as a probability. For the "perceived probability" that there is a god, most people lie on a continuum between 0 and 1.

Those people above 0.5 are theists. Those below 0.5 are atheists. There are very few that are exactly 1 or exactly 0.

LOL

- and you are one of the very few who are on the 1. How often do you hear the term "...if there is a God" expressed by Christians? I hear it often.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation? Reply #370 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:58pm freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 11:15am: You are correct Grey. As inscrutable as ever
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22292
A cat with a view

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #371 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:06pm

muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:54pm:

Yadda wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:27pm:

But if the people of Togo wish to worship their own 'imaginary friends' [the forest gods of Togo], then that is their choice.

And i would concede that such people 'could' be referred to as theists.

Yadda,

All good. By the way, I would never use that term myself - at least not nowadays.

I also don't find anything irrational or crazy about your beliefs. I just don't happen to share them.

And i am not frightened of using it.

And if people care to [try to] mock me, by using it, it does not offend me.

I know [that in the bigger scheme of things] i'm just a fool.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #372 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:16pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:32am:

Muso, back to the earlier point, I don't think many people make the distinction between believing and knowing. They know what they believe and believe what they know. It would be difficult for someone to know that God might exist and still believe God does not exist. People who believe that God does not exist would be unlikely to acknowledge the possibility they are wrong. I cannot see a meaningful distinction between knowing and believing that flying pigs don't exist.

- or the celestial teapot for that matter.
Bertrand Russell argued that although it is impossible to know that the teapot does not exist, most people would not believe in it. Therefore, one's view with respect to the teapot would be an agnostic "ateapotist", because while they don't believe in the existence of the teapot, they don't claim to know for certain.

Many people do make that distinction and have been making the distinction since the theologian Robert Flint first brought it up in the 19th century.

It's not something I invented and it's been around for a long time, yet you insist that there must be a distinction.

Quote:

Also, if agnostic is entirely separate from atheism, what is the term for someone who is not agnostic? Gnostic?

That's not what I'm saying. An agnostic can be an atheist or a theist. There is no term for a person who is not agnostic. Such a person would be a theist, but not all theists are agnostic.
Quote:

Quote:

I'm not suggesting that a person with a different view should try to define somebody else's worldview. So I can define myself as a theist any way I choose? If that's the case, it breaks down the definitions and makes generic definitions such as 'theist' and 'atheist' next to useless on their own.

I was referring to the 'definition' of specific gods or religions, not terms like theism or atheism.

I was defining a specific religion. I was defining it as being theistic.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22292
A cat with a view

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #373 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:27pm

muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:16pm:

- or the celestial teapot for that matter.
Bertrand Russell argued that although it is impossible to know that the teapot does not exist, most people would not believe in it. Therefore, one's view with respect to the teapot would be an agnostic "ateapotist", because while they don't believe in the existence of the teapot, they don't claim to know for certain.

LOL

It is a joy, to read some of these posts. Grin

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51059
At my desk.

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #374 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:35pm

Quote:

That's not what I'm saying.

It's the same as saying they are not mutally exclusive - they are about different things.

Quote:

An agnostic can be an atheist or a theist. There is no term for a person who is not agnostic. Such a person would be a theist, but not all theists are agnostic.

So you can't have a 'Gnostic atheist'? Someone who believes and knows that God does not exist?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged