Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Rise of Atheism and Agnosticism

12346»

Posts

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    FCD wrote:
    Another question...

    How could Atheists or Agnostics even begin to debate the nature of Gnosism?

    If you don't care, or don't know, then you've never existed in a state of knowing, which is primarily what Gnosticism is all about.

    Knowing what? What, exactly, are you talking about?

    a false sense of superiority based on the thought that one possesses special insight. Ego-driven claptrap, in other words.

    tmsig.jpg
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Another question...

    How could Atheists or Agnostics even begin to debate the nature of Gnosism?

    If you don't care, or don't know, then you've never existed in a state of knowing, which is primarily what Gnosticism is all about.

    Mystery cults and what not... the implication there is that there's just something about reality that an Atheist or Agnostic chooses to overlook.

    One of the first steps on the Eight Fold Path of Buddhism is right sight. If taken to mean right preception or right viewpoint, then the intention of the first step on the path is understanding what is in front of your own face. It's more a method of increasing your own perceptual awareness of the world around you and within you.

    To take another note from the Gospel of St. Thomas:
    Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.

    For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised.]"

    As much as I feel like beating myself in the head every time I see this style of argument, at least I'm learning something. Shoddy debating is my kryptonite, I simply can't resist getting pulled in when people jabber in obviously flawed ways. /tangent


    To the point: For the love of all you apparently hold Holy, please, PLEASE, learn to use a dictionary before trying to speak critically (see Athiesm, Agnosticism, gnosticism, religion, proof, etc).

    Your grasp of the simple definitions of the words you are trying to use is physically painful.

    Atheism and Asgnosticism are NOT don't know/don't care in the religious world. Read the previous sentence over and over till you understand it.

    Athiesm - the belief that all physical evidence points to the non-existence of a god or higher power. They don't "not care", in fact many are extremely passionate, they simple have examined all the evidence and the continued lack of any proof of a god, plus the increasingly perfect explanation of physical existence by science, all of which have led them to dismiss religious claims, pending any new evidence.

    Agnosticism - the belief that it is physically impossible to know anything about god. They take all the stuff from atheism, but add in a "it's possible a god COULD exist, there's just no proof yet" so they chose to allow the possibility without proof. Logically flawed, but the least irrational of all religions, if that's possible.

    Everything else you said - Yes, a cult will make claims without subtantiation that there is more to reality. That's why it's called a cult instead of "group that likes facts."

    One might turn the whole "right sight" spiel back upon religion. If, right in front of your face, is a world that can completely be explained with mundane facts, then why do you insist on giving weight to nebulous and unsupportable claims of mysticism? What is it in you that needs the comfort of the imaginary in the face of reality?

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Another question...

    How could Atheists or Agnostics even begin to debate the nature of Gnosism?

    If you don't care, or don't know, then you've never existed in a state of knowing, which is primarily what Gnosticism is all about.
    First, the "don't care, don't know" thing is the definition that you've put forth and have since clung to like an angry lobster - you're assigning your own definitions to things and then criticizing them based on those definitions.

    Second, it's perfectly possible to debate something on an academic level without being involved in it. I don't think all comparative religion professors subscribe to every religion they study.

  • DockenDocken Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The Cat wrote:
    FCD wrote:
    Another question...

    How could Atheists or Agnostics even begin to debate the nature of Gnosism?

    If you don't care, or don't know, then you've never existed in a state of knowing, which is primarily what Gnosticism is all about.

    Knowing what? What, exactly, are you talking about?

    a false sense of superiority based on the thought that one possesses special insight. Ego-driven claptrap, in other words.

    As I said before, assuming you know anything other than you exist is essentially pure assumption. Further assuming that said assumptions bestows upon you the wisdom of the ages is misguided at best, and dangerous at worst.

    The rationalist perspective on this is simple. What is unknowable and unprovable (either for or against) is ultimately irrelevant.

    What use is a God (or spiritual being) that either does not leave his mark on the Universe or does so in such a manner as to be imperceptible? Why should I care, considering that the only useful knowledge one can acquire in this life depends on it being verifiable, or at least replicable in a generally consistent manner.

    Once one gets past the useless assumption that current action is somehow 'judged' by an all-knowing, all powerful but completely invisible deity, religion itself becomes a question of impact. How does God impact me? As that can't be determined in any meaningful way, nor can it even be determined if such a God exists, religion becomes a bit of an indulgence, an amusing past time which really answers nothing, rather it merely projects a series of facts and assumptions on the world which mirror an individual's personal beliefs on how the world ought to be.

    steam_sig.png
  • itylusitylus Registered User
    edited November 2006
    werehippy wrote:
    Agnosticism - the belief that it is physically impossible to know anything about god. They take all the stuff from atheism, but add in a "it's possible a god COULD exist, there's just no proof yet" so they chose to allow the possibility without proof. Logically flawed, but the least irrational of all religions, if that's possible.

    I think most agnostics would disagree with your characterisation of agnosticism as a religion.

    I'm not sure why you say it's logically flawed.

  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    It could be classified as a religious standpoint. I'm not sure what the flaw is though.

  • mccmcc glitch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    It could be classified as a religious standpoint.
    But it is defined as the lack of a religious standpoint.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I didn't realize that my spiritual philosophy that developed over years of study and experience was so flawed, stupid and irrelevant. I have seen the light! The light says that I'm not intellectually lazy.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • DockenDocken Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Fencingsax wrote:
    I didn't realize that my spiritual philosophy that developed over years of study and experience was so flawed, stupid and irrelevant. I have seen the light! The light says that I'm not intellectually lazy.

    Your comment suggests precisely the opposite.

    steam_sig.png
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Fencingsax wrote:
    I didn't realize that my spiritual philosophy that developed over years of study and experience was so flawed, stupid and irrelevant. I have seen the light! The light says that I'm not intellectually lazy.

    what?

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Fencingsax wrote:
    I didn't realize that my spiritual philosophy that developed over years of study and experience was so flawed, stupid and irrelevant. I have seen the light! The light says that I'm not intellectually lazy.

    what?

    Never mind. Shitty joke, but I'm really tired.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2006
    The Cat wrote:
    FCD wrote:
    Another question...

    How could Atheists or Agnostics even begin to debate the nature of Gnosism?

    If you don't care, or don't know, then you've never existed in a state of knowing, which is primarily what Gnosticism is all about.

    Knowing what? What, exactly, are you talking about?

    a false sense of superiority based on the thought that one possesses special insight. Ego-driven claptrap, in other words.
    Except when I say it, because I know I'm right. God told me that that Morlock guy is totally wrong, he was just high on Radon from under his house. God also told me, that I'm his boss.

    You other gnostics can't even begin to debate the nature of my REAL ULTIMATE GNOSTICISM, they think some other arbitrarily selected unprovable claim from a list is true and thus clearly have never existed in a state of knowing, which is primarily what being God's boss is all about.

    I sent him out for coffee and donuts.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcc wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    It could be classified as a religious standpoint.
    But it is defined as the lack of a religious standpoint.

    I think it's impossible to not have any religious standpoint. It's like ice cream without a flavor.

  • mccmcc glitch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    It could be classified as a religious standpoint.
    But it is defined as the lack of a religious standpoint.

    I think it's impossible to not have any religious standpoint. It's like ice cream without a flavor.

    What if you simply choose not to eat any ice cream?

  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    that totally does not fit in my analogy

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    It could be classified as a religious standpoint.
    But it is defined as the lack of a religious standpoint.

    I think it's impossible to not have any religious standpoint. It's like ice cream without a flavor.
    Why isn't it possible to have an ice cream without flavour?

  • mccmcc glitch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    that totally does not fit in my analogy
    Neither does agnosticism.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    It could be classified as a religious standpoint.
    But it is defined as the lack of a religious standpoint.

    I think it's impossible to not have any religious standpoint. It's like ice cream without a flavor.

    Don't cha see? Non-belief is belief!

    Oh wait, no. That's a nonsensical statement.

    tmsig.jpg
  • mccmcc glitch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    What if we got just, like, a big bag of crushed ice from the gas station, and didn't add any flavoring? Would we have unitarianism?

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcc wrote:
    What if we got just, like, a big bag of crushed ice from the gas station, and didn't add any flavoring? Would we have unitarianism?
    Unless carbon dating says the ice is more than 6000 years old.

    Then we've got us a big ol' bag o' heresy

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcc wrote:
    What if we got just, like, a big bag of crushed ice from the gas station, and didn't add any flavoring? Would we have unitarianism?

    i made my unitarian parents reject their congregation.

    i'm so proud of myself.

    "so... the reverend is talking about god... but you don't believe in god?"

    "yes."

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The Cat wrote:
    FCD wrote:
    Another question...

    How could Atheists or Agnostics even begin to debate the nature of Gnosism?

    If you don't care, or don't know, then you've never existed in a state of knowing, which is primarily what Gnosticism is all about.

    Knowing what? What, exactly, are you talking about?

    a false sense of superiority based on the thought that one possesses special insight. Ego-driven claptrap, in other words.
    Except when I say it, because I know I'm right. God told me that that Morlock guy is totally wrong, he was just high on Radon from under his house. God also told me, that I'm his boss.

    You other gnostics can't even begin to debate the nature of my REAL ULTIMATE GNOSTICISM, they think some other arbitrarily selected unprovable claim from a list is true and thus clearly have never existed in a state of knowing, which is primarily what being God's boss is all about.

    I sent him out for coffee and donuts.

    Just watch. It'll come back with tea and crullers.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • PrincepsPrinceps Registered User
    edited November 2006
    Yeah, pleased to not having Morlock taken as representing reasonable proponents of theism. Those were not coherent arguments by any stretch of the imagination. Moving right along.

    It goes like this
    The fourth, the fifth
    The minor fall, the major lift
    The baffled king composing Hallelujah
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Titmouse wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    It could be classified as a religious standpoint.
    But it is defined as the lack of a religious standpoint.

    I think it's impossible to not have any religious standpoint. It's like ice cream without a flavor.
    Why isn't it possible to have an ice cream without flavour?

    When you eat you-flavored ice cream, it tastes like what you taste when you're not tasting anything, while when everyone else eats it, it tastes like whatever flavor your personality is analagous to. Didn't you ever read that one book?

    optimusighsig.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • JebuJebu Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    It could be classified as a religious standpoint.
    But it is defined as the lack of a religious standpoint.

    I think it's impossible to not have any religious standpoint. It's like ice cream without a flavor.

    PURGE THE ROCKY ROAD WITCHES

  • edited November 2006
    DarkPrimus wrote:
    Titmouse wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    It could be classified as a religious standpoint.
    But it is defined as the lack of a religious standpoint.

    I think it's impossible to not have any religious standpoint. It's like ice cream without a flavor.
    Why isn't it possible to have an ice cream without flavour?

    When you eat you-flavored ice cream, it tastes like what you taste when you're not tasting anything, while when everyone else eats it, it tastes like whatever flavor your personality is analagous to. Didn't you ever read that one book?

    Sounds like when people act like midwesterners don't have an accent, but of course, they do.


    I think its impossible not to have a religious standpoint in the sense that religious ideas have grown side by side with developments in theories of knowledge. So an athiest raised in X society is going to have arrived at athiesm in dialogue with X, which includes some religious ideas.

    I maintain there's a difference between faith and lack of faith though. Most people believe in some things they can't prove, but those unprovables don't necessarily constitute a religion, or have a lot to do with belief in God.

    Wii friend code: 8704 3489 1049 8917
    Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
  • Zul the ConquerorZul the Conqueror Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I wonder if we can do some kind of study of the correlation between off-topic posts and time in the Central U.S. or something.

    It certainly seems like this thread flew off the handle once it got a little late.

    That being said, I'm not sure I want to taste me-flavored ice cream. That just seems... dirty. I'm pretty sure Marilyn Manson does that.

    Vassal.png
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    itylus wrote:
    werehippy wrote:
    Agnosticism - the belief that it is physically impossible to know anything about god. They take all the stuff from atheism, but add in a "it's possible a god COULD exist, there's just no proof yet" so they chose to allow the possibility without proof. Logically flawed, but the least irrational of all religions, if that's possible.

    I think most agnostics would disagree with your characterisation of agnosticism as a religion.

    I'm not sure why you say it's logically flawed.

    I was actually trying to be careful to NOT call agnosticism a religion, which is why I ended up calling it a belief. Non-religious positions on religion can be gramatically difficult to discuss, especially when I'm banging my head on my desk trying to figure out what kind of a personal can make such idiotic claims about other beliefs while being so self-assuredly smug in their own rightness.

    It's debatable, but I think accepting the existence of something without proof can be called a logical flaw, ie the agnostic I have no proof of god, but chose to believe he can exist isn't logically solid. If I got the nuance there wrong, I'll freely admit to it (see earlier bang my head on desk point).

  • edited November 2006
    I wonder if we can do some kind of study of the correlation between off-topic posts and time in the Central U.S. or something.

    It certainly seems like this thread flew off the handle once it got a little late.

    That being said, I'm not sure I want to taste me-flavored ice cream. That just seems... dirty. I'm pretty sure Marilyn Manson does that.

    The 10 page lock-rule is totally apropos.

    Wii friend code: 8704 3489 1049 8917
    Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
  • JebuJebu Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The thread was fine until it became Morlock vs. the Universe.

    At that point I gave up.

  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I wonder if we can do some kind of study of the correlation between off-topic posts and time in the Central U.S. or something.

    It certainly seems like this thread flew off the handle once it got a little late.

    That being said, I'm not sure I want to taste me-flavored ice cream. That just seems... dirty. I'm pretty sure Marilyn Manson does that.

    The 10 page lock-rule is totally apropos.

    We have pretty much run this one into the ground.

    What we've learned: Know what the words you're using mean. Baseless sense of superiority will draw out the D&D dogpile. You may or may not be able to make a tasteless ice cream, in theory.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Jebu wrote:
    The thread was fine until it became Morlock vs. the Universe.

    At that point I gave up.

    The thread was screwed the moment he combined saying that Gnostics Know things, and when he showed faith in Pascal's Wager.

    Pascal's wager is right up there with Godwin's Law on bad signs.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Jebu wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    It could be classified as a religious standpoint.
    But it is defined as the lack of a religious standpoint.

    I think it's impossible to not have any religious standpoint. It's like ice cream without a flavor.

    PURGE THE ROCKY ROAD WITCHES

    Goddamnit Jebu, you made me laugh out loud at 12:40 in the middle of a library.

    These angry stares be on YOUR HEAD.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    DarkPrimus wrote:
    Titmouse wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    It could be classified as a religious standpoint.
    But it is defined as the lack of a religious standpoint.

    I think it's impossible to not have any religious standpoint. It's like ice cream without a flavor.
    Why isn't it possible to have an ice cream without flavour?

    When you eat you-flavored ice cream, it tastes like what you taste when you're not tasting anything, while when everyone else eats it, it tastes like whatever flavor your personality is analagous to. Didn't you ever read that one book?

    Holy shit, isn't that from one of those Wayside School books?

    Those were awesome.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    KalTorak wrote:
    DarkPrimus wrote:
    Titmouse wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    It could be classified as a religious standpoint.
    But it is defined as the lack of a religious standpoint.

    I think it's impossible to not have any religious standpoint. It's like ice cream without a flavor.
    Why isn't it possible to have an ice cream without flavour?

    When you eat you-flavored ice cream, it tastes like what you taste when you're not tasting anything, while when everyone else eats it, it tastes like whatever flavor your personality is analagous to. Didn't you ever read that one book?

    Holy shit, isn't that from one of those Wayside School books?

    Those were awesome.

    Everyone wanted to taste Jimmy.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Incenjucar wrote:
    KalTorak wrote:
    DarkPrimus wrote:
    Titmouse wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    It could be classified as a religious standpoint.
    But it is defined as the lack of a religious standpoint.

    I think it's impossible to not have any religious standpoint. It's like ice cream without a flavor.
    Why isn't it possible to have an ice cream without flavour?

    When you eat you-flavored ice cream, it tastes like what you taste when you're not tasting anything, while when everyone else eats it, it tastes like whatever flavor your personality is analagous to. Didn't you ever read that one book?

    Holy shit, isn't that from one of those Wayside School books?

    Those were awesome.

    Everyone wanted to taste Jimmy.

    And the one kid that everyone hated tasted like garbage or mud or something.

    Man, that's gotta be a blow to the ego.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    LURRRVVVVE THAT RULE

    tmsig.jpg
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    KalTorak wrote:
    DarkPrimus wrote:
    Titmouse wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    It could be classified as a religious standpoint.
    But it is defined as the lack of a religious standpoint.

    I think it's impossible to not have any religious standpoint. It's like ice cream without a flavor.
    Why isn't it possible to have an ice cream without flavour?

    When you eat you-flavored ice cream, it tastes like what you taste when you're not tasting anything, while when everyone else eats it, it tastes like whatever flavor your personality is analagous to. Didn't you ever read that one book?

    Holy shit, isn't that from one of those Wayside School books?

    Those were awesome.

    I couldn't recall the title, but that sounds correct.

    optimusighsig.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
12346»
This discussion has been closed.