Author Topic: remember math yeah, it was just a theory right ?.......  (Read 63065 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline A Hellene

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 591
  • Country: gr
Re: remember math yeah, it was just a theory right ?.......
« Reply #225 on: October 07, 2011, 11:53:15 pm »
Dave, though I can see what you mean by describing yourself as an atheist, this is a matter of semantics.

As I wrote in my previous message (but did not properly support it), atheism is not a god-free system of belief. In fact, Atheism and Theism are the two opposite poles of the same subject matter, revolving around the existence or not of god(s).

Actually, according to Oxford English Dictionary,

theism:
a. gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism.
b. Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = monotheism.
c. Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = deism
d. esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.
[from Greek ???? (god) + -ism.]
[from Greek theos (god) + -ism.] *

atheism:
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).
[adoption of French athéisme (16th c. in Littré), from Greek ????? from privative ? + ???? (god) and -ism.]
[adoption of French athéisme (16th c. in Littré), from Greek atheos from privative a + theos (god) and -ism.] *



On the other hand, I chose for me the term unreligious because it describes a person indifferent to or not related to religion; in contrary to the term irreligious that describes a person that can be perceived as someone indifferent or hostile to religion.

No hostility here; only rationality.

Me being unreligious means that I do not really care what all the religious doctrines preach to their gullible customers because I do not recognise any religious dogmas as authorities in my life; nor can I take seriously anything I strongly believe to be outrageous lies (i.e. afterlives and resurrections promises, meekness and conformity as the answer to fear-mongering supernatural threats, magical waters and entities, supernatural events, etc.) that --factually-- have always been used by those in power to steer deceivingly the masses in favour of the former ones and against the interests of the latter ones.

"Causality" and "Who benefits?" are the major keys for me to analyse almost anything.


-George



[ * ] EDIT: Please, Dave, fix the database support of the Greek language...
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 12:02:27 am by A Hellene »
Hi! This is George; and I am three and a half years old!
(This was one of my latest realisations, now in my early fifties!...)
 

Offline IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9560
  • Country: us
Re: remember math yeah, it was just a theory right ?.......
« Reply #226 on: October 08, 2011, 12:39:18 am »
@George

I'm not sure I can clearly discern a difference between atheism and being unreligious in your description. Atheism is really the rational position that leads one to be unreligious.

One also should make a clear distinction between religion and the existence of God (or gods, or spirits, or supernatural beings). One could in principle believe in the supernatural without feeling that it has any particular bearing on the day to day process of going about ones daily life.

If we talk about the existence of God, this is where we can state a position in two ways: either believing that God does not exist, or not believing in the existence of God. Are they different? I argue that they are not.

For instance, I do not believe in the existence of a parallel Earth orbiting on the other side of the sun. I also believe that there is no parallel Earth orbiting on the other side of the sun. Is one statement stronger than the other? I do not think so. I think either statement is an equivalent expression of the rational position, that no credible evidence exists for a counter-heliacal Earth-like planet. Given no such evidence, it is unnecessary to hold such a belief. One does not have to go further and spend time proving there is an empty hole in space where such a planet might be. If someone suggests you should spend such time, the logical and rational answer is "Why?".
I'm not an EE--what am I doing here?
 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9092
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: remember math yeah, it was just a theory right ?.......
« Reply #227 on: October 08, 2011, 01:14:06 am »
let me repeat. religion does not provoke war. human lust of power does. power of money, power of knowledge, power of economy etc. if someone say religion causes havocs, he simply dont have enough knowledge about religion. and people who make war, they dont follow religion teaching. simple as that.
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Offline Kiriakos-GR

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3525
  • Country: gr
  • User is banned.
    • Honda AX-1 rebuild
Re: remember math yeah, it was just a theory right ?.......
« Reply #228 on: October 08, 2011, 01:26:54 am »
@George

I'm not sure I can clearly discern a difference between atheism and being unreligious in your description. Atheism is really the rational position that leads one to be unreligious.

I will give my translation about this dilemma.

The automatic spellchecker in Firefox gives me the word  unreligious  as Error and the nonreligious as correct.

Even so, atheist is the one who does not accept to believe in any God, and does a public fight so to prove to the others that they are wrong.
He does not say that there is not God's, he just reject's them.

The unreligious or nonreligious are all the undecided, the undecided person can change his mind in time, if he receive a proof that there is something superior than him, out there.

I do not know what happens worldwide, but in Greece there is daily miracles that happens to the people who really deserves them.
This would probably sound like ... Become a christian so to receive a free miracle, but hey no, it does not work that way.

But there is also and another reality, like that the people who had receive a miracle they are afraid to speak about it,
so to not be flamed by the others publicly.
What those people do ?  they just return to the temple over and over every year,
and silently they thanks God about the help that they got.

Some people say or wonder why God does not do this or that... like to expect a public sign so to believe ?
And the bottom line, or the truth that I believe, are that the relation of the humans with God, is an extremely personal thing.
Every one walks alone about creating one such relation.

Simple as that.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29701
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: remember math yeah, it was just a theory right ?.......
« Reply #229 on: October 08, 2011, 08:07:19 am »
Dave, though I can see what you mean by describing yourself as an atheist, this is a matter of semantics.

Only if you want to confuse the issue further than it already is. I don't really care for semantics such.

Quote
As I wrote in my previous message (but did not properly support it), atheism is not a god-free system of belief. In fact, Atheism and Theism are the two opposite poles of the same subject matter, revolving around the existence or not of god(s).

Correct.
You either sit on the side of the fence of believing in their being a god (religious + theists), or you sit on the side of the fence of saying you don't believe in a god or gods. Once again, less any theist become mistaken, that's "belief" based on (lack of) evidence and reason.
That non-belief side of the fence is the default position, and includes Athesist, Agnostics, and simply the "non-religious" in general. You have to specifically "opt-in" to the belief side of things.

In fact, having said that, THAT is in fact a major (if not the major) problem I have with religion in today's society.
Religion for a very long time has been essentially an "opt-out" system by convention, with children being labeled with the faith of their parents etc. And that's not the way it should be, it's wrong.
That's why I and many other Athiests are outspoken on the issue, because it's a defacto "opt-out" system. It if wasn't, and it was just some small groups of people who wanted to believe in such stuff, then that would be just fine, we wouldn't care, and wouldn't bother to label ourselves as atheists and promote it. Just like we wouldn't care about called ourselves anti-bigfoot or whatever.

You could say I'm Agnostic or a simple non-believer when it comes to bigfoot, or aliens, or supernatural stuff or whatever. I just don't care enough about those thing to label myself using a "stronger" term, like Atheist commonly is for religion.

Quote
Actually, according to Oxford English Dictionary,

theism:
a. gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism.
b. Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = monotheism.
c. Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = deism
d. esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.
[from Greek ???? (god) + -ism.]
[from Greek theos (god) + -ism.] *

atheism:
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).
[adoption of French athéisme (16th c. in Littré), from Greek ????? from privative ? + ???? (god) and -ism.]
[adoption of French athéisme (16th c. in Littré), from Greek atheos from privative a + theos (god) and -ism.] *


And therein lies the problem with the semantics of it all when you start whipping out the dictionary definitions.
One thing the dictionary does not tell you is WHY an Athesist "disbelieves" or "denies" the existence of a god or gods.
If you actually go our and ask Atheists, almost all of them will tell you it is because of the lack of evidence, among many other factors based on reason. Unsurprisingly, that's also the EXACT SAME reasons Agnostics and non-religious people in general will use too to explain (when pressed) why they generally don't believe.
So an Agnostic or non-believer is really no different to an Atheist, regardless of what dictionary definition you want to drag out.
If anyone wants to start nick-picking and trying to figure out exactly at which threshold of evidence/reason/doubt one moves from being an Agnostic to an Atheist, then good luck, because it's pointless to even try. They are both the same side of the coin.

Quote
On the other hand, I chose for me the term unreligious because it describes a person indifferent to or not related to religion; in contrary to the term irreligious that describes a person that can be perceived as someone indifferent or hostile to religion.

No hostility here; only rationality.

Sure, and there very often no hostility in Athesists either, they just generally prefer to speak louder about it and debate it more than an Agnostic or simply and "nonreligious" person. Either way, all three sit on the same side.

Quote
Me being unreligious means that I do not really care what all the religious doctrines preach to their gullible customers because I do not recognise any religious dogmas as authorities in my life; nor can I take seriously anything I strongly believe to be outrageous lies (i.e. afterlives and resurrections promises, meekness and conformity as the answer to fear-mongering supernatural threats, magical waters and entities, supernatural events, etc.) that --factually-- have always been used by those in power to steer deceivingly the masses in favour of the former ones and against the interests of the latter ones.

You can call yourself anything you like, that's fine by me, I have absolutely no problem with it.
I prefer to call myself an Athiest.

Quote
[ * ] EDIT: Please, Dave, fix the database support of the Greek language...

What's the problem exactly?

Dave.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 08:15:03 am by EEVblog »
 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9092
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: remember math yeah, it was just a theory right ?.......
« Reply #230 on: October 08, 2011, 12:04:22 pm »
dont be angry dave ;) dont be... too religious! :D its very seldom to see you post such a long, and doubled "post".
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29701
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: remember math yeah, it was just a theory right ?.......
« Reply #231 on: October 08, 2011, 12:33:28 pm »
its very seldom to see you post such a long, and doubled "post".

I guess I have nothing better to do tonight  ;D

Dave.
 

Offline SgtRock

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Country: us
Re: remember math yeah, it was just a theory right ?.......
« Reply #232 on: October 08, 2011, 03:14:42 pm »
Greetings EEVBees:

--I have no problems with religious people in general, but there is one group that really irritates me. And that is the anti-evolutionary bunch. I take a serious interest in the serious scientific debate over whether birds evolved directly from therapod dinosaurs or were present in the fossil record much earlier. I also have an interest in the serious scientific debate about the dinosaur extinction, the Chixalub impact, the KT boundary and so forth.

--My problem is this; Every time I try to do any web research on these topics, I have to weed my way through hundreds of listings containing the most sophomoric quibblings, nigglings, and nit pickings, regarding evolution and the fossil record. It is like they are trying to overwhelm us with decoys to keep us from finding out what serious scientists have to say. They seem to prefer to quibble with the fossil record mole hills, and to shy away from the DNA mountain.

--If I were them I would spend a lot more time proving that the sun actually goes around the earth which is only 6000 years old. But apparently since an exact and complete interpretation of the fossil record is not possible, they think they can jump in and point out some small unsettled question and tip over the entire table. It would be like me saying I have proved the Bible wrong on the the age of the earth, therefore the ancient kingdom of Israel is a fairy tale.

--Now the "Birds Are Dinosaurs", "Meteor Killed Dinosaurs" and "Global Warming" zealots indeed can be irritating (especially with the media being enamored of these topics), running around screaming "Its settled science, its settled science", and trying to blacken the reputation of any one who disagrees with them. But at least they have limited them selves to argument, and have not tried to cover up the entire WWW with trash and nuisance postings. Indeed the anti-evolutionists are at least a hundred times as irritating as the others.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan 1934-1996

Best Regards
Clear Ether
 

Offline Sionyn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 848
  • Country: gb
Re: remember math yeah, it was just a theory right ?.......
« Reply #233 on: October 08, 2011, 08:29:24 pm »
eecs guy
 

Offline A Hellene

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 591
  • Country: gr
Re: remember math yeah, it was just a theory right ?.......
« Reply #234 on: October 16, 2011, 07:48:10 pm »
Ahh! You will absolutely love this!

Theism, Agnosticism and Religiosity under philosophical (==rational) examination, in a free book called Against the Gods?, courtesy of Stefan Molyneux, host of the Philosophy conversation website Freedomain Radio and the Freedomain Radio YouTube channel.

In this book, the writer argues about the costs of false ethics and the Religion as Child Abuse, amongst other fundamental issues derived by this ancient institution called religion. The introduction of this free book is also available in video documentary form, embellished with powerful images that speak for themselves.

This is the seven and a half minutes long video clip of the book's introduction chapter:



...and this is the full deal, for those lazy enough to read a less than forty pages long book:




-George
Hi! This is George; and I am three and a half years old!
(This was one of my latest realisations, now in my early fifties!...)
 

Offline SgtRock

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Country: us
Re: remember math yeah, it was just a theory right ?.......
« Reply #235 on: October 17, 2011, 12:12:59 am »
Dear George:

--I would hate to offend you by taking you out of context or misstating your position. Are you recommending Freedom Radio as a place for truth or humor. I am unfamiliar with it.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

Winston Churchill

Best Regards
Clear Ether
 

Offline A Hellene

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 591
  • Country: gr
Re: remember math yeah, it was just a theory right ?.......
« Reply #236 on: October 17, 2011, 01:21:59 am »
I'm not offended in any way. I am sorry, though, if the opening statement in my previous message might have been misinterpreted as sarcastic; if this was the case it is my fault, since I know that my command of English is far from perfect.

According to my perception, there are no panaceas; no absolute truths; no absolute anything, since this is the very definition of the dogmas. But I would not hesitate to recommend Stefan Molyneux's philosophical views, since I cannot (or, I am unable to) find any serious flaws in his aspects, his rationale and the historical accuracy of his works. On the contrary, his perception appears to be accurate enough and his dissections seem to be of high precision.

For example, another one of his latest books under the sarcastic title "The Handbook of Human Ownership: A Manual for New Tax Farmers" is one of the best reads I have had for years. It is about the history of human exploitation by other humans; it is a rather indigestible piece of work, verbalised in the second-person singular as a monologue of an archon (a ruler) giving advices to a newly anointed politician about the duties and the benefits of his new position. Actually, this book is the sequel of his introduction to the concept of Human Ownership, this ancient institution that proudly lives even today, half a millennium after the end of the Dark Ages...

Anyway, these are the two video-documentaries on the concept of Human Ownership that I would unreservedly recommend to anyone looking for answers to watch:


and




-George
Hi! This is George; and I am three and a half years old!
(This was one of my latest realisations, now in my early fifties!...)
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf