• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A "real" atheist...

arthwollipot said:
Huh?

Alternative state of consciousness? Care to elaborate on this a little?
Click to expand...

Alternate states of consciousness are states of consciousness other than the analytical waking state. They are more common in non-western society's and it there is an hypothesis that they were integral in the development of art, religion and the domestication of plants and animals.
See my thread what is religion for the evidence of this hypothesis.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I specifically call myself "agnostic atheist" because people tend to think "agnostic" means I'm on the fencf while "atheists" are dogmatic.
Click to expand...

so you're dogmatically on the fence? :D

I can see where you're coming from--at least you have folks asking what you mean by that instead of just assuming based on the label. I'm right along the lines with Dawkins, the probability of a Deity based on religious thought is highly unlikely, and I live my life as though there were none. However, when asked, I just say I'm agnostic--I don't really care what they think about it.

To be honest, I'm not asked much, everyone assumes because of where I live that I'm a Christian.
 
shawmutt said:
so you're dogmatically on the fence? :D

I can see where you're coming from--at least you have folks asking what you mean by that instead of just assuming based on the label. I'm right along the lines with Dawkins, the probability of a Deity based on religious thought is highly unlikely, and I live my life as though there were none. However, when asked, I just say I'm agnostic--I don't really care what they think about it.

To be honest, I'm not asked much, everyone assumes because of where I live that I'm a Christian.
Click to expand...

I don't like "agnostic" in isolation. It is too general. It could mean that you have no serious opinion on God because you have not looked at the arguments pro or con. "Atheist" is more specific.
 
!Kaggen said:
Yes, personify = to represent (a thing or abstraction) in the form of a person

Darwinism= Theory of Evolution "as represented by" Darwin
Click to expand...

Naming a theory after someone is not the same as personification. Anyway, no need to get into debates over definitions.
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
Naming a theory after someone is not the same as personification. Anyway, no need to get into debates over definitions.
Click to expand...

Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone.
It has been used in many contexts to justify belief systems (mythologizing) both for and against the theory of evolution.
 
!Kaggen said:
Alternate states of consciousness are states of consciousness other than the analytical waking state. They are more common in non-western society's and it there is an hypothesis that they were integral in the development of art, religion and the domestication of plants and animals.
See my thread what is religion for the evidence of this hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Posters who misstate their intentions are not usually treated well.
 
!Kaggen said:
Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone.
It has been used in many contexts to justify belief systems (mythologizing) both for and against the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...

You know, I'm not sure I've ever seen the term "Darwinism" used as anything other than an attempt to mischaracterise the acceptance of an overwhelming body of evidence as a mere personality cult. Those of us who accept the evidence for evolution of species by natural selection would not normally characterise ourselves as "Darwinists" - I'm sure I don't - but simply as sane reasoning beings. Therefore, any discussion of what "Darwinism" does or doesn't mean seems to me entirely specious; the very word seems no more, at least in current usage, than a strawman used by the religious to ascribe properties of religion where there are none.

In other words, Darwinism (the usage) is just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone, and dishonestly so.

Dave
 
Only read the OP, and will likely give a reply that sounds a lot like someone else's.

I consider myself a "Weak Atheist". I don't believe there are any deities, but I don't have the proof to say they do not exist.

My understanding of an Agnostic is that they feel they can't say there is or is not a God (or Gods).

I feel the evidence against there being any deities is strong enough to convince a rational person. But, again, I have no proof to back up my lack of belief, so I only claim to not believe, I do not claim there is no God.

Personally, I think many of the people that claim to be Agnostic are just chicken Atheist. I give Michael Shermer as an example. I've read several of his books, Skeptic magazine, eSkeptic, and his articles in Sci-Am each month. I believe, based on several things he has said that he does not believe there are Deities, yet he claims to be Agnostic. If forced, I believe I could find some quotes to back up what I've said, but it would take a while to go through the books (though I think "Why Darwin Matters" and "How we believe"/"Why People Believe Weired Things" is where I will find them). I think he has also debated the existence of God perhaps? Yet last I read, he still considers himself Agnostic. I have much respect for Dr. Shermer! I enjoy reading his books and articles very much! But, I think he's a chicken Atheist, unless he has crossed over to the Dark Side, and I missed it ;)

I can understand why someone that really does not believe in any Gods would rather be known as an Agnostic rather than an Atheist. They each invoke different preconceptions from the general public. Personally, I just really don't give a rats behind what people think ;)
 
Dave Rogers said:
You know, I'm not sure I've ever seen the term "Darwinism" used as anything other than an attempt to mischaracterise the acceptance of an overwhelming body of evidence as a mere personality cult. Those of us who accept the evidence for evolution of species by natural selection would not normally characterise ourselves as "Darwinists" - I'm sure I don't - but simply as sane reasoning beings. Therefore, any discussion of what "Darwinism" does or doesn't mean seems to me entirely specious; the very word seems no more, at least in current usage, than a strawman used by the religious to ascribe properties of religion where there are none.

In other words, Darwinism (the usage) is just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone, and dishonestly so.

Dave
Click to expand...

My point exactly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom