Jump to content

Welcome to Ain't No God
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Templeton Foundation has taken sides

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,780 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

The Templeton Foundation has taken sides.  They have decided that the Agnostics are right and the Atheists are wrong.  They have declared this with money.

 

If anybody wants to make me an offer -- I can be bought.      [smilie=happyspin.gif] 

 

Is there anything quite so sad, as being willing to sell out?  And nobody wants to buy?

 

 

https://www.patheos....&utm_content=44


Edited by jonathanlobl, 09 June 2019 - 05:37 PM.

Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl

#2
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,117 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

Marcelo Glesier is wrong for another reason.  Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.  Atheism is a stance on religion, specifically a disbelief in gods.  Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, specifically that we can't know anything about gods.  It's possible to be an agnostic-atheist, which is the stance that, there isn't enough evidence for the existence of gods, therefore the logical thing is to not believe in them.

 

One can be an agnostic-theist, "There isn't evidence for God, but I'm going to believe anyway."

 

One can be a gnostic-theist, "I know for a fact God exists, that's why I believe."

 

Glesier's argument is a criticism of gnostic-atheism, which is, "I know God doesn't exist, so I don't believe."  As the article points out, this stance can be reasonably applied if God has a clear definition.  The God of the Bible is contradictory, and can therefore be easily disproven.  Some idiot walking around claiming to be God can be easily disproven.  Gods of different religions that have conflicting natures can be disproven, since both can't exist at once.  God as defined through fallacious logical arguments like the Cosmological Argument can be easily disproven.

 

Aside from that, any given theist is still an atheist towards all the gods of competing religions in which they were taught to not believe.


The new Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Massacre a crowd of civilians, draw a target around them, and declare they were all terrorists.


#3
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,780 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

Marcelo Glesier is wrong for another reason.  Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.  Atheism is a stance on religion, specifically a disbelief in gods.  Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, specifically that we can't know anything about gods.  It's possible to be an agnostic-atheist, which is the stance that, there isn't enough evidence for the existence of gods, therefore the logical thing is to not believe in them.

 

One can be an agnostic-theist, "There isn't evidence for God, but I'm going to believe anyway."

 

One can be a gnostic-theist, "I know for a fact God exists, that's why I believe."

 

Glesier's argument is a criticism of gnostic-atheism, which is, "I know God doesn't exist, so I don't believe."  As the article points out, this stance can be reasonably applied if God has a clear definition.  The God of the Bible is contradictory, and can therefore be easily disproven.  Some idiot walking around claiming to be God can be easily disproven.  Gods of different religions that have conflicting natures can be disproven, since both can't exist at once.  God as defined through fallacious logical arguments like the Cosmological Argument can be easily disproven.

 

Aside from that, any given theist is still an atheist towards all the gods of competing religions in which they were taught to not believe.

 

 

 

Yes.  Just as you say.  Except that the arguments tend to be more about the labels, than anybody's actual state of non-belief.  Over the years, I've done my own field testing.

 

When I used the Agnostic label, both believers and Atheists wanted to know -- What would it take for you to make up your mind?  I know what the word means.  That's not how it was received.  In general, it's taken as wishy washy sitting on the fence.-- I was told to Grow a spine.  This is the basic argument that Agnostic provokes.  It gets old fast.  In general, I did catch less hostility than the Atheist label.

 

Sitting on the fence is a common refrain.  Mr. Deity/Dalton said -- "You could totally lose a nut that way."

 

A few years back, I joined a few Atheist groups on Facebook.  The same question kept coming up, as though for the first time.  If you had to -- gun to your head -- choose a religion -- which religion would you choose?  I said, Agnostic.  I thought it was funny.  From the response, you would think I had walked into their church and pissed on their altar.  I had to drop out.  These groups had no sense of humor at all.  The last time I looked, they were all gone.  Small wonder.

 

It's not as true now as it used to be.  Still, saying Atheist brings out the hate.  And the fear.  Sometimes, a really irritating curiosity.  One day, I'm shopping at the local grocery.  A woman that I had talked with earlier -- I had taken a class with her -- walked up to me with her roommate.  She said -- This is the Atheist I was telling you about.  You would think she had found a Bigfoot.  Other memories cling.  The odd party where the topic of religion would come up.  When asked, I said Atheist.  Out of no where, I would be asked -- Can't we all have mutual respect?  

 

For me, the real problem with saying Atheist, is the stupid metaphysics arguments, that result.  We all know them.  I won't list them here.  I am so tired of metaphysics.  As far as I'm concerned, the only time to turn to metaphysics -- is when Prune juice and the other physics, fail to produce a movement.

 

I also tried Pantheist.  It's amazing, how many people can't tell the difference, between Pantheist and Polytheist.  I would be asked why I believed in the old gods.  Or I would catch a lecture on false gods.  Like there's a difference between the false gods and the real gods.

 

The real problem with Pantheism, is that it's dishonest.  If everything is God, then God is nothing.  Of course, there is no reason to invoke the God idea at all.  It's simply a way not to say Atheist.

 

My favorite label, these days, is Apatheist.  Not caring about Theism.  There is not knowing, which is Agnosticism.  Not believing, which is Atheism.  And not caring which is Apatheism.

 

It's an end to arguing.  Even if God could be demonstrated to exist -- it still doesn't matter.  A deity which neither helps nor hinders, has no relevance and can be ignored.


Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl

#4
Cousin Ricky

Cousin Ricky

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,810 posts
  • LocationSt. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands

I am what I am. Take it or leave it.


“Facts seem to roll off a Christian like water off a duck.” —Great Ape

“How much can you actually doubt something and still maintain that you believe it?” —Josh K, “Alpha and Omega”

“You don’t understand. My crisis of faith is over.

#5
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,780 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

I am what I am. Take it or leave it.

 

 

Yes.  Of course.  I'm only making observations.  People really get bent out of shape over their labels.

 

[smilie=happyspin.gif] 


Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl

#6
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,117 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

I typically go with Humanist, and if they have a problem with it, then that's their problem not mine.  You can be a Humanist regardless of whether or not you belong to any religion.  I have to say though, there are quite a lot of believers and unbelievers alike who seem opposed to this set of values, as they are solely focused on the bigotry with which they've integrated their label.


The new Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Massacre a crowd of civilians, draw a target around them, and declare they were all terrorists.


#7
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,780 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

I typically go with Humanist, and if they have a problem with it, then that's their problem not mine.  You can be a Humanist regardless of whether or not you belong to any religion.  I have to say though, there are quite a lot of believers and unbelievers alike who seem opposed to this set of values, as they are solely focused on the bigotry with which they've integrated their label.

 

 

Humanist sticks in my throat.  Time has passed and I'm vague on detail.  This much I remember.  When Paul Kurtz retired, he had office space for life, at the Humanist group that he founded.  One day, he went in to his office, to find that his replacement, had changed the locks on his office door.  Kurtz was escorted out by security.  I don't know what the issues were.  I do know, that I despise cruelty.  


Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl

#8
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 21,703 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California

Humanist sticks in my throat.  Time has passed and I'm vague on detail.  This much I remember.  When Paul Kurtz retired, he had office space for life, at the Humanist group that he founded.  One day, he went in to his office, to find that his replacement, had changed the locks on his office door.  Kurtz was escorted out by security.  I don't know what the issues were.  I do know, that I despise cruelty.  

 

Surely only a few humanists were involved in Mr. Kurtz's experience, it hardly reflects on all humanists.

 

I have come to dislike referring to myself as an atheist, despite remaining free of theological delusions.  These days I much prefer to consider myself a humanist because I'm happy to support the continued existence and well being of my species. Not to the disadvantage of other species, but rather in harmony when possible and feasible.

 

If I tell someone I'm an atheist I have just brought to their mind the baggage they apply to the word, usually inaccurate.  Folks don't seem to be as predisposed to dislike a humanist based on preconceived false notions.  Atheism is essentially a negation, it is denial of a widely held, albeit false, belief.  So it is easy to understand why it tends to decrease harmony with theists. I want to increase harmony. 

 

More than that, though, I've grown extremely weary of the constant battle between reality and religion. If people want to be stupid know nothings they will always succeed because all that is required is no action.


Join our religion of love and peace or burn in hell!


#9
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,780 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

Surely only a few humanists were involved in Mr. Kurtz's experience, it hardly reflects on all humanists.

 

I have come to dislike referring to myself as an atheist, despite remaining free of theological delusions.  These days I much prefer to consider myself a humanist because I'm happy to support the continued existence and well being of my species. Not to the disadvantage of other species, but rather in harmony when possible and feasible.

 

If I tell someone I'm an atheist I have just brought to their mind the baggage they apply to the word, usually inaccurate.  Folks don't seem to be as predisposed to dislike a humanist based on preconceived false notions.  Atheism is essentially a negation, it is denial of a widely held, albeit false, belief.  So it is easy to understand why it tends to decrease harmony with theists. I want to increase harmony. 

 

More than that, though, I've grown extremely weary of the constant battle between reality and religion. If people want to be stupid know nothings they will always succeed because all that is required is no action.

 

 

 

For similar reasons, I have gone with the Apatheist label.  When I say that I'm an Atheist, it has a way of leading to a mind numbing, stupid argument, about metaphysics.  It's much more difficult to argue with -- I don't give a crap.  It's not something that they know how to respond too.  


Edited by jonathanlobl, 12 June 2019 - 05:16 AM.

Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl

#10
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,780 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

On reflection, I think the perfect umbrella label for the Secular is -- Secular.

 

Any comments?


Edited by jonathanlobl, 12 June 2019 - 12:32 PM.

Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl

#11
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 21,703 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California

That word fits OK, but how many dumbasses know what it means?

 

I still prefer humanist because it connotes my support for our species.


Join our religion of love and peace or burn in hell!


#12
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,780 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

That word fits OK, but how many dumbasses know what it means?

 

I still prefer humanist because it connotes my support for our species.

 

 

 

How many dumb asses, think that Humanism is a religion?  A lot.  For years, I've been reading that Secular Humanism, is the religion of Public Schools.  This assertion comes from Creationists, as proof that they are being discriminated against.

 

There is no such thing as a fool proof label.  The stupid and the ignorant and the religious, always find a way.


  • Cousin Ricky likes this
Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users