| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait! If atheism is a religion, then surely tax-exempt status can't be far behind?
I wish to change my position! ;-)
I'm an atheist too Sanakht, but I gotta say there have been several examples given in this very thread of atheist religions; I think atheist is much more a clinical description than pejorative term. (Well, depending on the tone of voice it's said with, but y'know.)
Speaking from my own cultural/family history, Quakerism rather demands independent thought.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
The difference is that the results of scientific study are replicable because it is objective, but the results of theological study may not be replicable because religious experience is subjective and a matter of interpretation.Are you saying the results of theological study are irrelevant, or at least trivial, beyond the mind of the particular person doing them?
No, I'm saying that theologians, like philosophers, reach different conclusions about things. People disagree.
BigNorseWolf: Although I disagree with your implication that individual presuppositions form the basis for all theology (or philosophy, for that matter), I wholeheartedly agree that science is objective and replicable while theology and philosophy are more subjective. One's theology and philosophy are inevitably influenced by one's personal experiences. Seriously bro it's like you didn't see the last sentence of my post. :)
No, I'm saying that theologians, like philosophers, reach different conclusions about things. People disagree.The difference is that the results of scientific study are replicable because it is objective, but the results of theological study may not be replicable because religious experience is subjective and a matter of interpretation.Are you saying the results of theological study are irrelevant, or at least trivial, beyond the mind of the particular person doing them?
How does theology resolve these disagreements? I mean we both know what I'm thinking of as historical ways they were resolved but obviously that's not a great solution.
It's true that philosophy is pretty terrible at getting agreement going since so much of it is entirely divorced from reality and more about manipulating concepts than modeling reality, but my past experience has been that believers think theology is ultimately about reality and not just a neat cognitive sport or bit of make-believe. Are you saying that you see theology strictly as a devotional act, then?
If so that's cool. It's just not what I usually expect to hear when a believer talks about theology. :)
One's theology and philosophy are inevitably influenced by one's personal experiences. Seriously bro it's like you didn't see the last sentence of my post. :)
I saw it, i was trying to shift the emphasis from some sort of theological revelation and to something a lot closer to home; as you put it, individual presuppositions form the basis for all theology (or philosophy, for that matter)
I have seen far too many religious and philosophical arguments to conclude that they're anything but a thin veneer to make personal opinions seem reasonable and well thought out. THey are not a vehicle for getting from point A to Point B they're a vehicle for getting from point A to point A.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
How does theology resolve these disagreements? I mean we both know what I'm thinking of as historical ways they were resolved but obviously that's not a great solution.
It's true that philosophy is pretty terrible at getting agreement going since so much of it is entirely divorced from reality and more about manipulating concepts than modeling reality, but my past experience has been that believers think theology is ultimately about reality and not just a neat cognitive sport or bit of make-believe. Are you saying that you see theology strictly as a devotional act, then?
If so that's cool. It's just not what I usually expect to hear when a believer talks about theology. :)
Well, that's the thing--neither theology nor philosophy are great at brokering ideological agreement. Different people will see various arguments as more or less convincing. EDIT: that's why we have different religions, and also different sects or denominations even within religions.
I wouldn't say theology is strictly a devotional act, but I would say that an attempt to understand theology clinically, divorced from the actual practice of religion, is likely to result in an incomplete theology. The experience of religion informs theology and vice versa.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
One's theology and philosophy are inevitably influenced by one's personal experiences. Seriously bro it's like you didn't see the last sentence of my post. :)I saw it, i was trying to shift the emphasis from some sort of theological revelation and to something a lot closer to home; as you put it, individual presuppositions form the basis for all theology (or philosophy, for that matter)
I have seen far too many religious and philosophical arguments to conclude that they're anything but a thin veneer to make personal opinions seem reasonable and well thought out. THey are not a vehicle for getting from point A to Point B they're a vehicle for getting from point A to point A.
I concede that the argument that arguments themselves merely reinforce individual presuppositions could be corollary to my point that one's theology/philosophy is informed by individual experience, insofar as one's presuppositions are molded by one's experiences. That gets into tabula rasa kind of territory, though--you believe what you believe because that's what the aggregate of your experiences, including theological or philosophical study, have taught you.
On the other hand, I've known plenty of people who, as a result of theological study, have changed their opinions about things; gone from point A to point B, as you say.
On theology:
"Theology is the study of an unknown being with unknown attributes doing mysterious works past our understanding combined with learning from an oxymoronic mysteriously revelatory book which enables us to arrive at mysterious tentative conclusions by use of a mysterious and ever changing hermeneutic to interpret this book in light of the ever changing knowledge base of the current time period to avoid falsification. Surely we can conclude this is a very profitable field of study."
~ C.S. McKinney
In other words, it's not applicable in any meaningful way, since it's discussing topics and concepts that are not evidential in any way.
Well, that's the thing--neither theology nor philosophy are great at brokering ideological agreement. Different people will see various arguments as more or less convincing.
I don't think its the arguments at all, I think its the conclusion people are after. They just pick the argument that agrees with them.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Ethics aren't evidential, either, but most people consider them pretty applicable nonetheless and use them on a daily basis. I'd wager that most of us also have some a priori ethical assumptions and, generally, do pick the ethical arguments that tickle our fancies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ethics aren't evidential, either, but most people consider them pretty applicable nonetheless and use them on a daily basis. I'd wager that most of us also have some a priori ethical assumptions and, generally, do pick the ethical arguments that tickle our fancies.
The results of ethics are, however, evidential to a large degree, since it deals with actual situations (involving humans, animals, the environment etc).
There is no outside governing "force" to put into the equation as there is with theology.
I don't think the term atheist became clinical until the last couple hundred years, the prior almost 2000 years to that it was very much a derogatory term.I'm an atheist too Sanakht, but I gotta say there have been several examples given in this very thread of atheist religions; I think atheist is much more a clinical description than pejorative term. (Well, depending on the tone of voice it's said with, but y'know.)
Speaking from my own cultural/family history, Quakerism rather demands independent thought.
Can I ask, given that we're talking about pre-enlightenment vocabulary, would you differentiate between heretic, apostate and atheist? (Never mind the Iconoclasts...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He could only have been called an "atheist" posthumously, since the word was first used in the 1566, 20 years after his death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what you're talking about Irontruth, that was the first use of "Atheift": either someone had a lisp, or that's another word. :P
Well, they were french.
I don't know the technical terms and what not, in older manuscripts like this, s's are often written as f's. You'll see it on the next page too, with the word "reafon".
Well, they were french.
I don't know the technical terms and what not, in older manuscripts like this, s's are often written as f's. You'll see it on the next page too, with the word "reafon".
They're not quite the letter f, but close enough to be confusing. In the US the long s fell into disuse in the early 1800s.
...I was just kidding around; yes, I'm a living embodiment of Poe's Law.
They're not quite the letter f, but close enough to be confusing. In the US the long s fell into disuse in the early 1800s.Well, they were french.
I don't know the technical terms and what not, in older manuscripts like this, s's are often written as f's. You'll see it on the next page too, with the word "reafon".
Agreed, but with a modern typeface, that single letter is difficult to identify without context. I like the German ß better.
I like the German ß better.
I'll never forget the German dude I knew who looked at a soda machine here in the U.S. and disdainfully drawled, "What is this 'Mr. Piss'?"
It sometimes amuses me to say the Emglish word "glass" as "glab," imagining the ss to be an s-tset and myself to be an ignorant rube.
I like the German ß better.I'll never forget the German dude I knew who looked at a soda machine here in the U.S. and disdainfully drawled, "What is this 'Mr. Piss'?"
It sometimes amuses me to say the Emglish word "glass" as "glab," imagining the ss to be an s-tset and myself to be an ignorant rube.
Man, I'm just trying to figure out why everyone says, "Oh shibe!" when I show up.
Man, people who speak languages other than English are WEIRD!
@Kirth, was Emglish an intentional misspelling, or a hilarious accident in a post about purposeful misspellings?
was Emglish an intentional misspelling, or a hilarious accident in a post about purposeful misspellings?
Nice one! It was, in fact, a symptom of my degenerating motor functions. I've been a pumpkin for over 20 minutes now, Central time.
was Emglish an intentional misspelling, or a hilarious accident in a post about purposeful misspellings?Nice one! It was, in fact, a symptom of my degenerating motor functions. I've been a pumpkin for over 20 minutes now, Central time.
HA! My girlfriends dad has "pumpkin time" at 9 PM central every night. So, I totally get the reference.
HA! My girlfriends dad has "pumpkin time" at 9 PM central every night. So, I totally get the reference.
Cinderella, dude. You kids need to watch some Disney movies some time!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HA! My girlfriends dad has "pumpkin time" at 9 PM central every night. So, I totally get the reference.Cinderella, dude. You kids need to watch some Disney movies some time!
Nono, I know. I do get the reference. But just saying "pumpkin time" is an example of "parallel evolution", if you will, of in-jokes.
But I'll pass on the Disney movies. There's, like, half a dozen I actually like. If they bring back hand-drawn cell animation I might patronize them once more.
EDIT: Also, your spelling mistake reminded me of this.
I like the German ß better.I'll never forget the German dude I knew who looked at a soda machine here in the U.S. and disdainfully drawled, "What is this 'Mr. Piss'?"
It sometimes amuses me to say the Emglish word "glass" as "glab," imagining the ss to be an s-tset and myself to be an ignorant rube.
When playing MMO's and someone is clearly using the ß as a B, I always pronounce it as an estzet to annoy them.
Man, people who speak languages other than English are WEIRD!
Imagine if they spoke Anglish. They'd be talking about the Banded Folkdoms of Americksland. Madness!
Atheism is definitely a faith; I don't know about a religion. I mean, there's really no church to go to. There is plenty of "scripture," though (e.g. Richard Dawkins).
I have faith that my flaky friend will show up to gaming on Friday nights, despite evidence to the contrary. Does that count?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Atheism is definitely a faith; I don't know about a religion. I mean, there's really no church to go to. There is plenty of "scripture," though (e.g. Richard Dawkins).
I think i've read one of his books... and reviewed it negatively.
What precisely makes his works scripture, other than you disagreeing with him?
If atheism is a religion, then you are broadening the definition of religion so much that it doesn't really mean anything anymore.
How about Unitarian Universalism? We call ourselves a religion and are widely recognized as such. Many of us meet in a building we call a church, despite having no creed. Though our movement has its roots in non-Trinitarian Christianity (we come from a business merger of two Christian movements about 50 years ago and trace our roots to Michael Servetus in the 16th century), many of us identify as agnostics or atheists.
As it's kind of on topic, I went to see Neil DeGrasse Tyson speak at UW-Madison today. Free! He was super awesome! I could tell you all about it, but suffice it to say he talked much about what we've been talking about in here--communicating science. He didn't really have any ideas either, sadly.
Apparently he's going to be hosting a re-do of Cosmos! That should rock.
|
|
As it's kind of on topic, I went to see Neil DeGrasse Tyson speak at UW-Madison today. Free! He was super awesome! I could tell you all about it, but suffice it to say he talked much about what we've been talking about in here--communicating science. He didn't really have any ideas either, sadly.
Apparently he's going to be hosting a re-do of Cosmos! That should rock.
I did a quick search on YouTube, but found nothing. Do you know if it was taped?
Also, NDT's Cosmos = Awesome!
As it's kind of on topic, I went to see Neil DeGrasse Tyson speak at UW-Madison today. Free! He was super awesome! I could tell you all about it, but suffice it to say he talked much about what we've been talking about in here--communicating science. He didn't really have any ideas either, sadly.
Apparently he's going to be hosting a re-do of Cosmos! That should rock.
I did a quick search on YouTube, but found nothing. Do you know if it was taped?
Also, NDT's Cosmos = Awesome!
There were approximately one f$*!ton of people there, so I'm sure SOMEONE taped it. Give it a few days.
And yeah, that will be awesome.
As it's kind of on topic, I went to see Neil DeGrasse Tyson speak at UW-Madison today. Free! He was super awesome! I could tell you all about it, but suffice it to say he talked much about what we've been talking about in here--communicating science. He didn't really have any ideas either, sadly.
Apparently he's going to be hosting a re-do of Cosmos! That should rock.
I don't feel so bad not having them either then.
I don't feel so bad not having them either then.As it's kind of on topic, I went to see Neil DeGrasse Tyson speak at UW-Madison today. Free! He was super awesome! I could tell you all about it, but suffice it to say he talked much about what we've been talking about in here--communicating science. He didn't really have any ideas either, sadly.
Apparently he's going to be hosting a re-do of Cosmos! That should rock.
His general attitude seemed to be "aww just ignore those anti-science wackos. keep doing awesome science and they'll see the error of their ways" which is just sort of naive.
I agree, it strikes me as naive as well.
Society is a giant conversation and science is letting itself get drowned out right now.
I agree, it strikes me as naive as well.
Society is a giant conversation and science is letting itself get drowned out right now.
Yeah. I mean don't get me wrong, I loved the talk and he always has a lot of great ideas, but it was the dang theme of his talk and he had no answers or even suggestions.
|
|
I did a quick search on YouTube, but found nothing. Do you know if it was taped?As it's kind of on topic, I went to see Neil DeGrasse Tyson speak at UW-Madison today. Free! He was super awesome! I could tell you all about it, but suffice it to say he talked much about what we've been talking about in here--communicating science. He didn't really have any ideas either, sadly.
Apparently he's going to be hosting a re-do of Cosmos! That should rock.
There were approximately one f$@~ton of people there, so I'm sure SOMEONE taped it. Give it a few days.
And yeah, that will be awesome.
It's a great talk on memes. He quoted Horace Mann. yay!
It's a great talk on memes. He quoted Horace Mann. yay!
Sweet. My favorite is when he shouts down a chucklehead asking some sort of metaphysical gobbledigook: "what about inner space, the intersection between the environment and the human mind". I'm imagining he was talking about hallucinogens? Like that movie Altered States? Anyway he got a right good mocking.
Hopefully better video will be released, I'm fairly certain it would have been recorded for broadcast on the Wis channel. I'll keep my eyes peeled. By the way this video is only from like 15 rows back. You don't really get a sense of HOW PACKED the freaking Union Terrace was! I've literally never seen it so busy.
Science is only being drowned out when compared to the ideal we would all like.
When compared to any other point in history, science is doing quite well.
Depends on what you mean by doing well.
If you watch the talk, the point was that science doesn't have the cultural currency it did in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. For a plethora of reasons. Science is still making advances year by year in any number of fields, but because those advances aren't effectively communicated the rewards of such advances (technology) are taken as granted by the masses. People are generally science and math illiterate, and of course America isn't the world leader it once was.
Science is only being drowned out when compared to the ideal we would all like.
When compared to any other point in history, science is doing quite well.
In other places. Here in the US, 5% fewer people believe in evolution compared to 25 years ago.