Context is Key

[Kafein]

If organized religions were a "parasitical" meme, whatever that means, then "atheistic" societies would be the norm. As it is, the nature of the world means that a group of people fanatically convinced of their revealed "truths", no matter how patently retarded they are, will be more succesful at replicating itself than a group that is constantly second guessing itself and paralyzed by apathy, even if their "truths" are actually, well, true. It could well be that being a gullible idiot is actually a survival mechanism, perhaps not on the individual level, but on a collective one.

I think we need to run this experiment for longer. Just because societies survived like that in the past doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it now.

[ecorcheur_brokar]

hahaha it sounds like as soon as you take out religion of someone's mind, he directly become apathetic, merely able to move, like a robot without battery.

I don't think they were ever societies without religion (maybe some in Asia were religion is very close to philosophy), it was just to show a different view. But the thing is that most of the time, aggressive religion replace easily pacific religion or philosophy. Like the various christian movement that appeared in Europe that were against war or against imposing religion at birth, that all ended badly for their believers. Or the Buddhist kingdom when they faced the rise of islam. And logically any non-proselytist movement is less likely to last.

As kafein said, it's not because smth has always been done in the past, we should continue, like slavery for exemple. But surely, it will not be an easy task to keep EU atheist (see refugee flooding europe, OMG everything is linked!!!!!  )

[LordBerenger]

hahaha it sounds like as soon as you take out religion of someone's mind, he directly become apathetic, merely able to move, like a robot without battery.

I don't think they were ever societies without religion (maybe some in Asia were religion is very close to philosophy), it was just to show a different view. But the thing is that most of the time, aggressive religion replace easily pacific religion or philosophy. Like the various christian movement that appeared in Europe that were against war or against imposing religion at birth, that all ended badly for their believers. Or the Buddhist kingdom when they faced the rise of islam. And logically any non-proselytist movement is less likely to last.

As kafein said, it's not because smth has always been done in the past, we should continue, like slavery for exemple. But surely, it will not be an easy task to keep EU atheist (see refugee flooding europe, OMG everything is linked!!!!!  )

When people aren't religious they turn to filthy nationalism.

[Jambi]

I hear alot of you folks will have to spend some time in Room 101, if you dont start listening to the Ministry of Truth department! Never forget the Thought Police monitors your every second alive!
Big Brother cares! the demographics show much progress each year... yet you complain and speak of things being un-good!

Join INGSOC today! Be happy tomorrow!

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Jeade]

Yes, it does, you are an atheist. If you do not care about football, you are a non-football fan, not something in-between a non-football fan and a football fan. It doesn't matter on what basis, you lack the belief in a god, thus you are an atheist. I don't see how people can put something in-between being something, and being not something. Everyone is a carpenter or not a carpenter.

I'm not on board with that, but I think it's a totally reasonable argument.

If you do believe in god, you cannot also lack a belief in god.
Similarly, if you do not believe in god, you cannot also believe in god. 
If I told you I didn't care, logically, I'd be forced to default to either belief or disbelief.
It wouldn't inherently imply disbelief.

In this case, they're agnostic at best; they claim neither to believe in god nor not believe in god.

even if there is [a creator] it doesn't matter since this does not in and of itself necessitate acts of worship or acknowledgment of a higher power.

You're absolutely right, but that's beside the overall topic of theism.
Theism at its simplest means only that there is some sort of god out there.
It doesn't demand praise or acknowledgement unless a religion is formed to demand it.

(click to show/hide)

If I totally missed your point, let me know. Few beers in right now.

[Jeade]

Is willingness to even hypothesize 'if there is a god' sufficient to be agnostic?

If you're hypothesizing, you're an agnostic.
Think of "agnostic" as a prefix to "theism" or "atheism."
If you're more than 50.1% certain that there is no god, you're an atheist.
If you remain open to the idea that you cannot posses absolute certainty, you are an agnostic.
If you're both of those things, you're an agnostic atheist.
In other words, you don't believe there is a god, but you realize that it is possible.

Gnosticism has taken on a new meaning—or at least a new reality—since the Enlightenment.
It would take quite the fool to take a gnostic position on anything except maybe mathematics.

[Taser]

That's why i have trouble categorizing it myself. If the existence of a god doesnt matter, and you're 99.99% certain there isnt one (but wouldnt be overly concerned if it turns out there was), is that 0.01% enough to make you a theist, or are you agnostic?

Is willingness to even hypothesize 'if there is a god' sufficient to be agnostic?

There are differing opinions and words change over time. The person who coined the word agnostic had this to say about it.

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis"--had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ...

-Huxley

There's also Bertrand Russell who I agree with largely on this quote from him.

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into
a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a
very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a
philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought
to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive
argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the
street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove
that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the
Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really
exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera,
Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could
not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I
would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say
in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I
think, take exactly the same line.

But the idea of gnosticism and agnosticism has changed over time. You have plenty of people that identify as agnostic atheist now that would have a hell of a time trying to defend the term vs just one or the other just 50 years ago. Its a very recent change. I'm not a huge fan of it but language is a changing thing. Even the term agnostic is just under a century and a half old. Words change and so do their definition. Still doesn't mean I have to like it though.

[Teeth]

Theism at its simplest means only that there is some sort of god out there.
It doesn't demand praise or acknowledgement unless a religion is formed to demand it.

Perhaps this is a linguistics issue, but isn't taking the stand that there is some sort of god out there the same as acknowledging the existence of some sort of god? I'd say theism thus does require acknowledgement, however uncertain or vague.

[Jeade]

Perhaps this is a linguistics issue, but isn't taking the stand that there is some sort of god out there the same as acknowledging the existence of some sort of god? I'd say theism thus does require acknowledgement, however uncertain or vague.

I was reading it as if acknowledgement meant something along the lines of respect or authority/dominance, but either way, you'd be right.

[Jambi]

Some passages in the bible sound very barbaric too the one's that value their flesh over their souls.
But people forget that Jesus died on the cross to save you're soul and not you're flesh. If in you're  lifetime you become corrupt and start to sin again, you're flesh will be taken away to secure you're soul from getting corrupt. You will be forgiven in purgatory in time, depending how quickly you realise you're mistakes and repent.

[Gravoth_iii]

Some passages in the bible sound very barbaric too the one's that value their flesh over their souls.
But people forget that Jesus died on the cross to save you're soul and not you're flesh. If in you're  lifetime you become corrupt and start to sin again, you're flesh will be taken away to secure you're soul from getting corrupt. You will be forgiven in purgatory in time, depending how quickly you realise you're mistakes and repent.

Your*

[Jambi]

Your*

You're right!

Thanks grammar police!