 | | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —David Laswell
|
| | | (...) That's true, if viewed in a certain light. Murder is always wrong, but societies define "murder" according to their own sense of morality. Many people would consider executing criminals to be murder. Texans do not. Many people would consider (...) (20 years ago, 14-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Many people view atheism as a belief system rather than a religion. Your points still stand, nonetheless, but I did want to point it out. I'll go farther, and state that I feel that people who consistently call atheism a religion are, in my (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | (...) What is a religion, if not a "belief system"? Just because atheism is not an organized religion doesn't mean it's not a religion at all. (...) You must have missed my lengthy discussion with Mr. Schuler regarding the fundamental differences (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) All religions are belief systems, but not all belief systems are religions. (...) Nor does it necessarily mean that it is. (...) No, I didn't miss it, I just wasn't convinced. My take then was that you were arguing by assertion. I'll take this (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) It is entirely dependent on approach. I've seen atheists who approach it as a religion, and others that do not. Generally, the more strident and absolutist an atheist is, the more it approaches a religion. The more dispassionate and scientific (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Is religion dead in the water? —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | | | (...) ...until it becomes agnosticism, the only true non-religion. The fundamental difference between atheists and agnostics is that atheism, like all religions, makes firm dogmatic claims regarding the existence of a supernatural being and the (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Actually you're confusing terms here. Agnostics believe that the existance of God is "inherently unknowable" whereas (most) atheists believe that God's existance is "unproven". There is a relativly small faction of atheists (known as hard (...) (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) You summed up what I would have responded with very succinctly, Orion. I agree with you assessment of atheists, and proper definition of agnostics. -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Definitions vs. Daffynitions (was Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I do too. It might make sense to keep it bookmarked! (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Definitions vs. Daffynitions (was Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) And, of course, I had to look further into it and find all the variations on a theme just to argue against myself (see immediately preceeding post on scroll). -->B<-- (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Definitions vs. Daffynitions (was Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Saw that, well done. Advantage of arguing against yourself... You always win. Disadvantage of arguing against yourself... You always lose, too. (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Definitions vs. Daffynitions (was Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you want people to vote for you in an election, you don't want to undercut yourself. If you are merely looking for enlightenment and better understanding then it is best to test yourself a (...) (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Is religion dead in the water? —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I could say the same: A-gnostic: without knowledge of god(s) A-theist: without belief in god(s) (...) Those are essentially different ways of saying the same thing. Anything that can serve as proof for the one group should serve equally well (...) (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Some quotes from Wikipedia that may be illuminating (or confusing depending on if you can keep track of it all): Some atheists distinguish between two variants: Weak atheism, or negative atheism, is the standpoint that there is no reason to (...) (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Is religion dead in the water? —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Those definitions stray from Huxley's (URL) original definition> (no offense intended to atheists or agnostics by the domain, but it was the most complete Huxley quote I could find), as he considered himself to be neither a theist nor an (...) (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Is religion dead in the water? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'm a little confused since the definitions you choose to quote above have utterly nothing to do with the link you provide. That is talking about his intellectual approach and not atheism at all, except in the most passing manner possible. (...) (20 years ago, 17-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Dictionary.com gives a serviceable definition of (URL) religion,> a definition with which I find myself in general agreement. In casual parlance I would pare it down a little further to say that religion entails the worship of and/or positive (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) The problem you're citing is basically one of semantics, so I don't think it's a good refutation of Lee's posited mathematical absolute. Whether you refer to "four" as 10 or IV or cuatro or 4, the underlying numeric principle is the same, and (...) (20 years ago, 18-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
