23 Jun 10
4 edits
Firstly I realise that many of you have somewhat refined notions about what sort of person is a [insert type of person], so I ask more what is your "shot from the hip" response to the terms that will follow (or let's say what *would* have been your "shot from the hip" prior to the insight you may now have?)
1) atheist
2) agnostic
3) theist
mine would be 1) has lack of belief in gods, 2) has belief that the existence of some god is a 50-50 proposition either way, impossible to know, 3) has belief in a particular god, represented accurately by a particular holy book, all other holy books are false.
23 Jun 10
3 edits
Originally posted by AgergMine would be the same as yours, minus the holy books (not always necessary) and the exclusivity. OK, maybe I have to define after all: atheist: one for whom divinity is meaningless; agnostic: one who cannot rule out the possible influence of some divine power; theist: one for whom existence is predicated on divinity (I sharply disagree about the need for exclusivity, though).
Firstly I realise that many of you have somewhat refined notions about what sort of person is a [insert type of person], so I ask more what is your "shot from the hip" response to the terms that will follow (or let's say what *would* have been your "shot from the hip" prior to the insight you may now have?)
1) atheist
2) agnostic
3) theist
mine ...[text shortened]... r way, impossible to know, 3) has belief in some particular god inspired by some holy book.
But is an animist a theist? Isn't an agnostic a skeptic with a smiley face? Could a person raised in pure ignorance of the concepts 'deity' or 'divinity' be properly said to be an atheist? The words are all historically charged and limited.
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by Agerg1) Self diluded'
Firstly I realise that many of you have somewhat refined notions about what sort of person is a [insert type of person], so I ask more what is your "shot from the hip" response to the terms that will follow (or let's say what *would* have been your "shot from the hip" prior to the insight you may now have?)
1) atheist
2) agnostic
3) theist
mine ...[text shortened]... in a particular god as represented a particular holy book, all other holy books are false.
2) Misguided
3) Spot on!! đ
23 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYeah, the exclusivity thing I edited in was in the interests of playing fair; I don't necessarily hold that belief now but my very first stereotype of a theist would have been that.
Mine would be the same as yours, minus the holy books (not always necessary) and the exclusivity. OK, maybe I have to define after all: atheist: one for whom divinity is meaningless; agnostic: one who cannot rule out the possible influence of some divine power; theist: one for whom existence is predicated on divinity (I sharply disagree about the need ity' be properly said to be an atheist? The words are all historically charged and limited.
As you've probably gathered I am interested in the stereotypes automatically assigned to people who state one of those 3 positions
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by Agerg1) atheist Self-contradictory, blinded by own small light.
Firstly I realise that many of you have somewhat refined notions about what sort of person is a [insert type of person], so I ask more what is your "shot from the hip" response to the terms that will follow (or let's say what *would* have been your "shot from the hip" prior to the insight you may now have?)
1) atheist
2) agnostic
3) theist
mine wou ...[text shortened]... ular god, represented accurately by a particular holy book, all other holy books are false.[/b]
2) agnostic Places hope in ambiguity: perhaps by sitting on the fence, lack of commitment won't be noticed.
3) theist On the right track, possibly.
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergYes. I have given you the 'first thoughts' I had about those things.
Yeah, the exclusivity thing I edited in was in the interests of playing fair; I don't necessarily hold that belief now but my very first stereotype of a theist would have been that.
As you've probably gathered I am interested in the stereotypes automatically assigned to people who state one of those 3 positions
23 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHmm...if I am to take that as contradicting myself (or someone else by proxy) in other discussions by virtue of how I titled this thread or the contents of my OP I would ask how!?
Mildly amusing, however, is your use of the words "religious" and "belief." When I've attached the labels to atheism in the past, my submission is met with all manner of rejection, vitriol.
Or perhaps you're referring to the fact I used 'belief' as opposed to belief :]
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergThe problem others have had with atheism/agnosticism being labeled as 'beliefs' or 'religions' is quite convoluted. So much so, that I am unable to bear the twisting logic of it without getting a mild headache. There was even one poor chap so contorted in his defense, he resorted to insisting they weren't positions, either! Hard to keep it all straight, I say.
Hmm...if I am to take that as contradicting myself (or someone else by proxy) in other discussions by virtue of how I titled this thread or the contents of my OP I would ask how!?
Or perhaps you're referring to the fact I used 'belief' as opposed to belief :]
23 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAs far as atheism being labeled as a belief, that is one of the motivations for this thread! (ie: how prevalent is the view that atheism *is* a belief (in particular, the belief there are no gods)?) This statement I can forgive (though certainly not agree with), but "religion"??? How does atheism qualify as such?
The problem others have had with atheism/agnosticism being labeled as 'beliefs' or 'religions' is quite convoluted. So much so, that I am unable to bear the twisting logic of it without getting a mild headache. There was even one poor chap so contorted in his defense, he resorted to insisting they weren't positions, either! Hard to keep it all straight, I say.
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergAlthough the term 'religion' has taken on a decidedly emotional/sentimental overture of late, the underlying concept behind the term is to denote a careful (as opposed to negligent) monastic existence, bound fast to solitary, self-inspective--- self-concerned or even self-absorbed--- vows.
As far as atheism being labeled as a belief, that is one of the motivations for this thread! (ie: how prevalent is the view that atheism *is* a belief (in particular, the belief there are no gods)?) This statement I can forgive (though certainly not agree with), but "religion"??? How does atheism qualify as such?
23 Jun 10
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIs it? whether or not atheism satisfies the criterion(s) for being a (or for having the qualities of a) religion under this given definition (I'm not seeing how), I'm not an etymologist so I reference the first main paragraph in the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) for "religion":
Although the term 'religion' has taken on a decidedly emotional/sentimental overture of late, the underlying concept behind the term is to denote a careful (as opposed to negligent) monastic existence, bound fast to solitary, self-inspective--- self-concerned or even self-absorbed--- vows.
Religion (from Latin religio, "reverence for the gods", "piety", possibly related to religare, "to bind"[1]) is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or more in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.[2]
Surely you can see why there is a justifiable tendency to attach some notion of an existent god(s) to the term "religion", and so given (I assert) a wealth of commonly agreed convention on what this word minimally entails I'm still troubled as to how it fits atheism
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergAre we talking about our response to the terms themselves, or to people claiming to be one of them?
what is your "shot from the hip" response to the terms that will follow
If someone says they are agnostic I tend to think that either:
1. They are actually atheists who don't feel comfortable with admitting it - due to discrimination against atheists.
or
2. They genuinely think it is a reasonable position.
23 Jun 10
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'd say I'm talking more about the actual terms themselves, and the stereotypes attributed to people aligned with them. The reason I want a gut reaction is because often in discourse a particular way of thinking, regardless of the circumstances is, I assert subconciously assigned to people who hold them.
Are we talking about our response to the terms themselves, or to people claiming to be one of them?
If someone says they are agnostic I tend to think that either:
1. They are actually atheists who don't feel comfortable with admitting it - due to discrimination against atheists.
or
2. They genuinely think it is a reasonable position.
It is a conjecture of mine that there is in many cases, a (biased) trinary way of thinking about ones position towards the existence of gods
1) One believes 100% that there exists no god or gods
2) One believes there may or may not be a god, equal probability either way
3) One is either 100% sure or highly confident there is a god, (though not necessarily 100% sure (hence having faith))
No other positions being allowed!