Posts by EdenOne

I didn't know I had to chose. The traits I gave apply to both monotheist god or polytheist gods. Let's just say that polytheist gods are specialized gods. Why not throw into the possibilities henotheism also? And still, why do I have to define?

Eden

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

EdenOne

Talesin: Actually, it's exactly the opposite.

Well, are you sure you got your facts right?

"By now, the difference between being an atheist and being an agnostic should be pretty clear and pretty easy to remember. Atheism is about belief, or specifically what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge, or specifically about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not. These can be the exact same person, but need not be."

Extracted from atheism.about.com

.. you're welcome.

Eden

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

EdenOne

Atheism is a position about belief, while agnosticism is a position about knowledge.

Eden

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

EdenOne

Jonathan Drake,

You're not making sense to ME. I didn't attempt to define God, nor rationalize God. Viviane kept challenging me to do it, as if I was a theist. That's like trying to make a water spring produce ginger ale. And that's why it was upsetting me, because I can't see the point in doing so.

Eden

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

EdenOne

Simon: The OP is deliberately unclear.

The OP was asking for a clarification, that's why it was a question. What exactly are we talking about when we talk about belief? And what exactly are we talking about in the definition of atheism as "lack of belief in deities"? And how is that related to the common claim that such lack of belief stems from "lack of evidence"?

As the debate went on, I expressed some of my ideas and perplexities, and received a big backlash because I don't yield just because X and Y say so. It's not a fair critique to say i was deliberately unclear.

Eden

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

EdenOne

Viviane: You've been vague and gotten upset when you were asked to be clear.

How am I supposed to define a deity which I don't believe in? That's why, when you repeatedly asked me to define a deity, the best I could do was to give you some common traits of deities that are worshipped by a large percentage of the world's population. I can't be any clearer than that. Do you go around asking atheists: "define me god?"

Eden

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

EdenOne

eden, radicalism only has a bad name because at the moment it is associated with ISIS.

I don't agree. Radicalism isn't new. Basically it means "change at the root" and, when associated with politics, it has been expressed by means of revolutions. Revolutions are violent movements. In the religious arena, "radicalism" is usually associated with attempts from one group to impose their theological ideas on others, either by aggressive proselitism, forced conversion, or outright violence, and death. ISIS is just the most recent incarnation, but "radicalism" in the realm of ideas is also not new.

To me, Jehovah's Witnesses are a borderline radical christian cult, because they proactively engage in proselytization (although I can't say "aggressively") and they advocate the conversion of the entire mankind to jehovism by means of a massive genocide at Armaggedon.

If an advocate for atheism [or insert any other -ism that you can think of] aims to aggressively uproot theism from their audience, to change the other person at the root of their belief system, even if that attempt isn't welcome, doesn't that qualify as "radical"? That was the use I gave to "radicalism" before.

Eden

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

EdenOne

Simon: whatever you do though please don't simply debate the debate.

Fair enough.

Eden

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

EdenOne

Viviane: And only get to speak for exactly one person, yourself.

Agreed. So do you.

Viviane: Anyway, you're hardly going to convince people to re-define a broad concept

You clearly miss the point of what is a “debate”. A debate is, by definition, “to discuss (something) with people whose opinions are different from your own”. That’s what we’ve been doing here. Since no one informed me that a voting will follow this debate, it seems that, of us two, only you appear to think that the purpose here is to “convince people” of something. That tells me that you have an agenda, a mission to accomplish. I, personally, don’t.

Viviane: You're asking people to assume they [know] what you mean

Not at all. First, turns out that the person who asked did it as a personal insult. Second, the sentence is in no way hard to understand. I was merely saying that radicalism is different than conviction or passion because it goes beyond ardent defense of one’s points of views versus the point of views of others; it is intolerant in nature, and attempts to uproot from other people’s minds, and from existence itself, competing or non-conforming ideas, often by violent means, going to great lengths to do so. Radicalism aims to change more than values at surface level, it demands change in the fundamental and deeper levels of human thinking, personality and will, and goes to great lengths to achieve that goal, from relentless propaganda to indoctrination to intimidation, to outright violence. Now, the person who asked knows all this, but had no interest in clarification, so his question wasn’t honest.

Viviane: until you decide to understand and clearly tell us what you are saying, no real debate or discussion can happen

No true Scotsman fallacy. We are debating and I have clearly told my ideas. For example, Ruby understood what I was trying to say, agreeing or not with it. But because I point out some things that you don’t find either convincing or convenient, you claim that this can’t be a true debate, and dismiss it.

Viviane: It's really just a lack of preparedness on your part to discuss your idea.

I admit that I’m relatively new to this side of the fence. So what? Do I have to take a Master’s degree before I can start debating any of my ideas? If I had set myself up to teach others, you might rightfully accuse me of lack of preparedness. But this is a public forum, not the academia, and you’re no Bertrand Russell either. Like I said before, I’m here to learn, but not to be lectured.

Viviane: the bad, very bad, ridiculous, silly and comical arguments you've presented here

Your resort to inflammatory, derogatory language and minimization gets tiring, but I think you do it by design, so I won’t reply to you in the same fashion. All I can say is that you’re an expert in Strawman, Red Herring, Declare Victory, Reductio ad Absurdum, use of sarcasm and patronizing techniques in debate. I really can’t compete. You win – because no other result is admissible in your way of debating.