 | | Re: Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) ...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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Definitions vs. Daffynitions (was Re: Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) I do too. It might make sense to keep it bookmarked! (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) 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: Definitions vs. Daffynitions (was Re: Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
