|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 4, 2021 22:36:32 GMT
So how does that differ from agnosticism? I haven''t the fucking time to explain it to you. Go read a book. I thank the Hon Member for his helpful response.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 4, 2021 22:39:18 GMT
That's a relatively recent definition which was very rarely used before the advent of the "new atheism" in the early 2000s. Philosophers continue to use the older definition of "the belief that God(s) do(es) not exist", as do plenty of ordinary atheists who aren't part of the new atheist crowd. I lack a belief in the existence of a John Smith who lives at some particular address in Australia because I have no reason to take any view on his existence or lack thereof. But I very much believe that Santa Claus does not exist, because I have reasons to believe him to be a fictitious story which many parents tell their younger children. It's perfectly legitimate for someone to take either of these stances with respect to God, and it's perfectly legitimate to describe either view as atheism. Both you and middyman are wrong to say that the term atheist only applies to people who fit in one of those two camps.
The specific formulation of words may be but the sentiment was not. Charles Bradlaugh, in "A Plea for Atheism" published in 1874, wrote: And that is exactly the same sentiment. Fair enough that the concept is older than its recent popularity, but the active disbelief definition was still the dominant definition until the New Atheist movement. David Hume, for example, was clearly able to conceptualise the idea of god and equally clearly rejected it. The words "atheism" and "atheist" are clearly applicable to those who lack a belief and those who actively disbelieve. Evangelistic atheism is a nonsense term. It's a straight contradiction and it's not even a Shavian paradox. What you may have confused it with is anti-clericalism. No. The new atheists actively evangelise against religious belief. They want people to give up and reject their religion . They do not just oppose the institution of the church or other religious organisation. Indeed, just look at The God Delusion, or a large number of atheist YouTube channels. There's even a book called A Manual for Creating Atheists which is basically an how-to guide for an atheistic version of street evangelism (which goes by the name street epistemology).
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on Jan 4, 2021 22:43:49 GMT
Not so. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in god(s). Not what you said. So how does that differ from agnosticism? Agnostics to use the political compass meme are grill daddies, they just want to stay at home and grill and not get involved in stuff that doesn't concern them, or to be a little more classy and classical about it like the Epicureans, there is no policy statement on the divine, they have no bearing on us so we shouldn't bother to have any interference on them.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 4, 2021 22:45:33 GMT
That's a relatively recent definition which was very rarely used before the advent of the "new atheism" in the early 2000s. Philosophers continue to use the older definition of "the belief that God(s) do(es) not exist", as do plenty of ordinary atheists who aren't part of the new atheist crowd. I lack a belief in the existence of a John Smith who lives at some particular address in Australia because I have no reason to take any view on his existence or lack thereof. But I very much believe that Santa Claus does not exist, because I have reasons to believe him to be a fictitious story which many parents tell their younger children. It's perfectly legitimate for someone to take either of these stances with respect to God, and it's perfectly legitimate to describe either view as atheism. Both you and middyman are wrong to say that the term atheist only applies to people who fit in one of those two camps.
Except he did, the 4th Century Bishop of Myra and pugilisitic member of the Council of Nicaea. It is Father Christmas who doesn't exist, whom Victorian nonsense mixed in with Nicholas. Whilst the modern Santa story is clearly descended primarily from commemorations of St Nicholas, the magic man who travels around the world at Christmas delivering presents to children is clearly not actually the same person. And sadly the story about the real St Nicholas hitting Arius during the Council of Nicea is almost certainly apocryphal.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 4, 2021 22:48:10 GMT
So how does that differ from agnosticism? Agnostics to use the political compass meme are grill daddies, they just want to stay at home and grill and not get involved in stuff that doesn't concern them, or to be a little more classy and classical about it like the Epicureans, there is no policy statement on the divine, they have no bearing on us so we shouldn't bother to have any interference on them. Well, I recognise all the words. But I still haven't understood it!
|
|
|
Post by relique on Jan 4, 2021 22:57:05 GMT
You can be anticlerical and believe in God (monotheist) Gods (polytheist), something but without knowing what (agnostic) or none of the above. Simply because you can believe that humans don't have a single shred of evidence on Gods or spaghetti and meatball plate and therefore clergymen and women are just storytellers who like to enjoy a position of power without any legitimacy.
Therefore if being atheist or agnostic should make you think clergy people are not legitimate to take part (because of their position as clergy) to public decision making, being a monotheist or polytheist can also make you think that (if only to clergy from other religions because if you truly believe your clergy people say the word of God and are therefore legitimate to take part to decision making then other clergypeople which are saying something different are not saying what you believe is the word of God and are therefore not legitimate being heretics/story tellers like JRR Tolkien, Lewis Caroll and JK Rowling, without the talent).
If you want to respect all religions you cannot take a side to either religion even if it is only practiced by 2 people because no one can truly think that the existence of a God would be settled via a referendum or elections. You therefore need to completely separate the human affairs (state, policy, science) from the spiritual affairs and ask your citizen to respect that to have democratic institutions you need every citizen to discuss on the same level and with the possibility to argue and convince other people. Spiritual stuff must therefore be banned from politics.
And the most shocking thing was not, my dear contributors, that a congressman (jokingly or not) said "amen and awomen" but the most shocking thing was the existence of a prayer and someone saying amen in the institution where bills become law.
Vive la laïcité, vive la Sociale, vive la France !
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on Jan 4, 2021 23:05:14 GMT
Agnostics to use the political compass meme are grill daddies, they just want to stay at home and grill and not get involved in stuff that doesn't concern them, or to be a little more classy and classical about it like the Epicureans, there is no policy statement on the divine, they have no bearing on us so we shouldn't bother to have any interference on them. Well, I recognise all the words. But I still haven't understood it! how about agnostics hold to a equal but separate model to relations between the supernatural and the natural, or perhaps a one multiverse two systems set-up?
I'm trying to find forum appropriate terminology for the all too common woo-woo incursions to our neck of the woods.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 4, 2021 23:12:29 GMT
You can be anticlerical and believe in God (monotheist) Gods (polytheist), something but without knowing what (agnostic) or none of the above. Simply because you can believe that humans don't have a single shred of evidence on Gods or spaghetti and meatball plate and therefore clergymen and women are just storytellers who like to enjoy a position of power without any legitimacy. Therefore if being atheist or agnostic should make you think clergy people are not legitimate to take part (because of their position as clergy) to public decision making, being a monotheist or polytheist can also make you think that (if only to clergy from other religions because if you truly believe your clergy people say the word of God and are therefore legitimate to take part to decision making then other clergypeople which are saying something different are not saying what you believe is the word of God and are therefore not legitimate being heretics/story tellers like JRR Tolkien, Lewis Caroll and JK Rowling, without the talent). If you want to respect all religions you cannot take a side to either religion even if it is only practiced by 2 people because no one can truly think that the existence of a God would be settled via a referendum or elections. You therefore need to completely separate the human affairs (state, policy, science) from the spiritual affairs and ask your citizen to respect that to have democratic institutions you need every citizen to discuss on the same level and with the possibility to argue and convince other people. Spiritual stuff must therefore be banned from politics. And the most shocking thing was not, my dear contributors, that a congressman (jokingly or not) said "amen and awomen" but the most shocking thing was the existence of a prayer and someone saying amen in the institution where bills become law. Vive la laïcité, vive la Sociale, vive la France ! In my days as a councillor (1983-2009) I'm delighted to say we never had prayers at council meetings except at the mayor-making each year where the Mayor's Chaplain (generally drawn from the Mayor's place of worship) would say a brief prayer. When I was in line to become Mayor I made it clear there would be no Mayor's Chaplain (in the event I declined the role anyway). One other curiosity was that there was an annual Civic Service and, whatever the denomination of the Mayor, it was always held at the largest Anglican church in the Borough. Which rather made me think it was more about show than belief.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 4, 2021 23:19:07 GMT
If you want to respect all religions you cannot take a side to either religion even if it is only practiced by 2 people because no one can truly think that the existence of a God would be settled via a referendum or elections. You therefore need to completely separate the human affairs (state, policy, science) from the spiritual affairs and ask your citizen to respect that to have democratic institutions you need every citizen to discuss on the same level and with the possibility to argue and convince other people. Spiritual stuff must therefore be banned from politics. Respecting all religions is not the same thing as treating all religions equally. Yes, we should separate the institutions of church and state. But that doesn't mean we should ban spiritual stuff from politics. Banning deeply religious people from expressing their beliefs in the political sphere is like asking someone to cut off their arm before they can engage in politics. It is, in effect, privileging the non-religious above the religious.
|
|
|
Post by relique on Jan 4, 2021 23:27:52 GMT
If you want to respect all religions you cannot take a side to either religion even if it is only practiced by 2 people because no one can truly think that the existence of a God would be settled via a referendum or elections. You therefore need to completely separate the human affairs (state, policy, science) from the spiritual affairs and ask your citizen to respect that to have democratic institutions you need every citizen to discuss on the same level and with the possibility to argue and convince other people. Spiritual stuff must therefore be banned from politics. Respecting all religions is not the same thing as treating all religions equally. Yes, we should separate the institutions of church and state. But that doesn't mean we should ban spiritual stuff from politics. Banning deeply religious people from expressing their beliefs in the political sphere is like asking someone to cut off their arm before they can engage in politics. It is, in effect, privileging the non-religious above the religious. No. All that should be expressed in a democratic discussion is debatable thinking. One's belief cannot be contested or debated. It is therefore unfit in a democratic decision making. If you say "taxes should be increased because God said so " then it is not possible to me to contest it and to have a debate. If you say "taxes should be increased because it would allow the state to lower the deficit" I can argue that by keeping taxes low the economy will be stimulated, grow and generate more fiscal revenue for the state in following years. One of the sentences can be included in a democratic debate. the other cannot.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 4, 2021 23:49:24 GMT
Respecting all religions is not the same thing as treating all religions equally. Yes, we should separate the institutions of church and state. But that doesn't mean we should ban spiritual stuff from politics. Banning deeply religious people from expressing their beliefs in the political sphere is like asking someone to cut off their arm before they can engage in politics. It is, in effect, privileging the non-religious above the religious. No. All that should be expressed in a democratic discussion is debatable thinking. One's belief cannot be contested or debated. It is therefore unfit in a democratic decision making. If you say "taxes should be increased because God said so " then it is not possible to me to contest it and to have a debate. If you say "taxes should be increased because it would allow the state to lower the deficit" I can argue that by keeping taxes low the economy will be stimulated, grow and generate more fiscal revenue for the state in following years. One of the sentences can be included in a democratic debate. the other cannot. One's belief absolutely can be contested or debated. There is plenty of debate in both the academic and popular spheres about the existence of God, and the central Christian claim that Jesus rose from the dead is often debated on the grounds of the historical evidence.
Yes, a religious argument for a particular policy stance will not convince somebody who does not share that belief, and anybody who tries to persuade the general public that way is a fool. But in a genuinely free society religious people would be free to decide their stance on particular policies based on their religious beliefs and not be forced to pretend otherwise. You appear to be saying that politicians who have strong religious beliefs which do affect their political views should be forced to lie about that fact, and also to refrain from any public expression of their faith. As somebody who falls into that category, I would have to frequently pretend I am someone else in order to adhere to that.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,248
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jan 4, 2021 23:50:57 GMT
Respecting all religions is not the same thing as treating all religions equally. Yes, we should separate the institutions of church and state. But that doesn't mean we should ban spiritual stuff from politics. Banning deeply religious people from expressing their beliefs in the political sphere is like asking someone to cut off their arm before they can engage in politics. It is, in effect, privileging the non-religious above the religious. No. All that should be expressed in a democratic discussion is debatable thinking. One's belief cannot be contested or debated. It is therefore unfit in a democratic decision making. If you say "taxes should be increased because God said so " then it is not possible to me to contest it and to have a debate. If you say "taxes should be increased because it would allow the state to lower the deficit" I can argue that by keeping taxes low the economy will be stimulated, grow and generate more fiscal revenue for the state in following years. One of the sentences can be included in a democratic debate. the other cannot. Straw man alert! I know of nobody ever saying "taxes should be increased because God said so". Debate requires respect, not straw men arguments. Bear in mind that I am a socialist because my faith leads me to believe that is the right way to deal our economic world, but God didn't tell me that, I have used my capacity for reason to express my understanding of my faith in this way.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,176
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 5, 2021 0:00:19 GMT
No. All that should be expressed in a democratic discussion is debatable thinking. One's belief cannot be contested or debated. It is therefore unfit in a democratic decision making. If you say "taxes should be increased because God said so " then it is not possible to me to contest it and to have a debate. If you say "taxes should be increased because it would allow the state to lower the deficit" I can argue that by keeping taxes low the economy will be stimulated, grow and generate more fiscal revenue for the state in following years. One of the sentences can be included in a democratic debate. the other cannot. One's belief absolutely can be contested or debated. There is plenty of debate in both the academic and popular spheres about the existence of God, and the central Christian claim that Jesus rose from the dead is often debated on the grounds of the historical evidence. Yes, a religious argument for a particular policy stance will not convince somebody who does not share that belief, and anybody who tries to persuade the general public that way is a fool. But in a genuinely free society religious people would be free to decide their stance on particular policies based on their religious beliefs and not be forced to pretend otherwise. You appear to be saying that politicians who have strong religious beliefs which do affect their political views should be forced to lie about that fact, and also to refrain from any public expression of their faith. As somebody who falls into that category, I would have to frequently pretend I am someone else in order to adhere to that.
Do you think it is also reasonable for people to consider that if a religious stance leads the politician to take a particular stand, then they could legitimately withold their vote? I could not vote Labour in 2010 because I was not prepared to vote for Joe Benton based purely on his voting record on gay equality. I was also not prepared to back his reselection on the same grounds and advocated when a Labour party member that he should be deselected. However that was because of his voting stance not his religion in the sense that other religious MPs may either decide to vote differently and think that there should be a distinction between church stance and what the law advocates (the Tim Farron position), or hold different views from their church as does Rebecca Long-Bailey or David Lammy?
|
|
|
Post by relique on Jan 5, 2021 0:10:43 GMT
No. All that should be expressed in a democratic discussion is debatable thinking. One's belief cannot be contested or debated. It is therefore unfit in a democratic decision making. If you say "taxes should be increased because God said so " then it is not possible to me to contest it and to have a debate. If you say "taxes should be increased because it would allow the state to lower the deficit" I can argue that by keeping taxes low the economy will be stimulated, grow and generate more fiscal revenue for the state in following years. One of the sentences can be included in a democratic debate. the other cannot. Straw man alert! I know of nobody ever saying "taxes should be increased because God said so". Debate requires respect, not straw men arguments. Bare in mind that I am a socialist because my faith leads me to believe that is the right way to deal our economic world, but God didn't tell me that, I have used my capacity for reason to express my understanding of my faith in this way. Are we on Jeopardy ? Because my answer would be : "What is "la dîme" ? " (It's getting late, I'll answer more fully later)
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,642
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 5, 2021 0:34:15 GMT
Not so. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in god(s). Not what you said. That's a relatively recent definition which was very rarely used before the advent of the "new atheism" in the early 2000s. Philosophers continue to use the older definition of "the belief that God(s) do(es) not exist", as do plenty of ordinary atheists who aren't part of the new atheist crowd.
That's not how I remember it from the 1980s, which was some time before the 2000s. In the circles I moved in, atheism was then stated to be an absence of a belief in god(s), not a belief in the absense of god(s), in much the same way that it was described that you can't "believe" in evolution any more than you can "believe" in tables. I suppose you can qualify it as hard atheism and soft athiesm to clarify things, much the same as the hard anthropic principle (the universe is so convivial for life-forms, fundamental physics must cause life-forms to arise) and the soft anthropic principle (the universe appears to be so convivial for life-forms because we are life-forms in that universe, if it wasn't convivial for life-forms we wouldn't be here to admire how convivivial it is).
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,642
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 5, 2021 0:36:59 GMT
Evangelistic atheism is a nonsense term. It's a straight contradiction and it's not even a Shavian paradox. What you may have confused it with is anti-clericalism. No. The new atheists actively evangelise against religious belief. They want people to give up and reject their religion . They do not just oppose the institution of the church or other religious organisation. They should join the Quakers. Nae Priests, Nae Bishops, Nae Hierarchy!
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 5, 2021 0:37:58 GMT
One's belief absolutely can be contested or debated. There is plenty of debate in both the academic and popular spheres about the existence of God, and the central Christian claim that Jesus rose from the dead is often debated on the grounds of the historical evidence. Yes, a religious argument for a particular policy stance will not convince somebody who does not share that belief, and anybody who tries to persuade the general public that way is a fool. But in a genuinely free society religious people would be free to decide their stance on particular policies based on their religious beliefs and not be forced to pretend otherwise. You appear to be saying that politicians who have strong religious beliefs which do affect their political views should be forced to lie about that fact, and also to refrain from any public expression of their faith. As somebody who falls into that category, I would have to frequently pretend I am someone else in order to adhere to that.
Do you think it is also reasonable for people to consider that if a religious stance leads the politician to take a particular stand, then they could legitimately withold their vote? I could not vote Labour in 2010 because I was not prepared to vote for Joe Benton based purely on his voting record on gay equality. I was also not prepared to back his reselection on the same grounds and advocated when a Labour party member that he should be deselected. Absolutely. That's the other side of the same freedom. Religious politicians should have the freedom to be honest about their faith and how it affects their politics and the electorate should have the freedom to react to that honesty as they see fit. Indeed. Both stances are valid.
In Christianity there has always been a distinction of some sort between church and state. And regardless of religion it doesn't take a genius to understand the distinction between personal morality (what's right and wrong behaviour) and the law (what behaviours the state enforces). So obviously it's perfectly legitimate to take a stance that, for example, gay sex is a sin but that the state should legally recognise same-sex relationships. This distinction between church and state isn't inherent to all religions, but the major world religions all have Westernised followers who do make it.
Whilst it would be very odd to belong to a church where you disagree with its leadership/preaching/statements of faith on almost everything, almost all Christians I've known disagree with their church leadership on at least some theological issues (the exceptions are invariably those who are relatively new to their faith). And when it comes to applying theology to politics there's even more room for disagreement. This principle would seem to apply to most religions, and in any case it seems rare that those religious cults which are too authoritarian to allow for varying interpretations produce any significant politicians.
|
|
Sandy
Forum Regular
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by Sandy on Jan 5, 2021 0:43:41 GMT
No surrender to atheism!!!!!!!! Why would not want people to know the truth though? John 8:32? Wonderful verse. Perhaps I should make it my new signature.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,642
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 5, 2021 0:51:15 GMT
No. All that should be expressed in a democratic discussion is debatable thinking. One's belief cannot be contested or debated. It is therefore unfit in a democratic decision making. If you say "taxes should be increased because God said so " then it is not possible to me to contest it and to have a debate. If you say "taxes should be increased because it would allow the state to lower the deficit" I can argue that by keeping taxes low the economy will be stimulated, grow and generate more fiscal revenue for the state in following years. One of the sentences can be included in a democratic debate. the other cannot. Straw man alert! I know of nobody ever saying "taxes should be increased because God said so". Debate requires respect, not straw men arguments. Bear in mind that I am a socialist because my faith leads me to believe that is the right way to deal our economic world, but God didn't tell me that, I have used my capacity for reason to express my understanding of my faith in this way. Counter straw man ! Ok, how about "sodomy must be banned because God says so, look, it says so here in the written Word Of God".
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 5, 2021 1:18:31 GMT
Straw man alert! I know of nobody ever saying "taxes should be increased because God said so". Debate requires respect, not straw men arguments. Bear in mind that I am a socialist because my faith leads me to believe that is the right way to deal our economic world, but God didn't tell me that, I have used my capacity for reason to express my understanding of my faith in this way. Counter straw man ! Ok, how about "sodomy must be banned because God says so, look, it says so here in the written Word Of God". As I said, only a fool would make such an argument in an attempt to convince people who do not already share their religion. And I don't think I've ever come across somebody foolish enough to do so, so I'm not sure your argument is any less of a strawman. Heck, the only examples I can think of for people making this argument to those of their own religion are Muslims who want to implement full Sharia law.
|
|