"Religious bigotry" is an overused term.

[Archaea]

Rule number 2, don't tell your wife she should not be offended.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I think one can make a pretty good argument that it is. Agnosticism has a better claim of not being a religion, IMO. Certainly is more "rational".

Anyone can spew forth a bunch of bullshit to fit their argument. We see it on here all the time, so of course they could make an argument, but a pretty good one? Not unless they want to be taken seriously.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Anyone can spew forth a bunch of bullshit to fit their argument. We see it on here all the time, so of course they could make an argument, but a pretty good one? Not unless they want to be taken seriously.

I think you are misunderstanding my point. Agnosticism means that you simply don't claim to know one way or the other if there is a God. Atheism means you firmly believe there is no God. Atheism implies a leap of logic in my opinion (how can one definitively prove there is no God?). That's all I am saying.

Furthermore, no one ever claimed it was religous bigotry. Go back and read NS's post.

Relax, buddy.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I think you are misunderstanding my point. Agnosticism means that you simply don't claim to know one way or the other if there is a God. Atheism means you firmly believe there is no God. Atheism implies a leap of logic in my opinion (how can one definitively prove there is no God?). That's all I am saying.

Furthermore, no one ever claimed it was religous bigotry. Go back and read NS's post.

Relax, buddy.

I'm perfectly relaxed.

And I'm keenly aware of the differences beware what an agnostic and atheist is.

And I still don't think someone can make a rational argument that atheism is a religion.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I think you are misunderstanding my point. Agnosticism means that you simply don't claim to know one way or the other if there is a God. Atheism means you firmly believe there is no God. Atheism implies a leap of logic in my opinion (how can one definitively prove there is no God?). That's all I am saying.

Furthermore, no one ever claimed it was religous bigotry. Go back and read NS's post.

Relax, buddy.

Actually, I think there's not a lot of difference between agnostics and atheists. Lebowski, I love you man, but you are reflecting a common misunderstanding of atheists. Atheists who have given any thought to their belief system are really just what have been known since ancient Greek times as "materialists." You see this reflected over and over again in modern writings of atheists. Many in fact just call themselves materialists. A couple of the founders of this outlook are Democritus and Epicurus.

Atheists or materialists don't have anyting like "faith" in the absense of God. What they believe is that anything you can't perceive with your senses is of no account. In fact they do practice a complete absense of faith; it's a discipline. They don't believe that "spirituality" is anyting other than emotion, until their senses tell them otherwise, that is. If they were to experience anything like Joseph Smith's "First Vision" they'd believe in God without having to adjust their basic outlook one whit.

Democritus and Epicurus are enormously underrated in their importance to Western culture. They are the true fathers of the scientific method. Aristotle and Plato are much more revered because they were the first humans to articulate a dichotomy between the carnal body and the soul, and the early Christians and later middle ages Christians incorporated their philsophies wholesale into Christianity; Plato even much influenced Paul's development of the idea of an atonement. But Epicurus dismissed his rough contemporary Plato as spinnr of fantasies.

Again, I refer everyone to the magnificent epic poem "On the Nature of Things" also called "The Way Things Are" for a brilliant and beautiful articulation of this outlook.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Actually, I think there's not a lot of difference between agnostics and atheists. Lebowski, I love you man, but you are reflecting a common misunderstanding of atheists.

If he is then that misunderstanding extends to many agnostics. I've heard Lebowski's exact definition from the lips of just about every agnostic with whom I associate (there are several).

[Archaea]

You're all a little right and a little wrong.

Sovran Maxim

http://www.epicurus.net/en/principal.html

http://www.epicurus.net/en/history.html

I'll also link some Democritus in another post.

Democritus was known more as an atomist, which is what Newton actually became.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac....emocritus.html

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

If he is then that misunderstanding extends to many agnostics. I've heard Lebowski's exact definition from the lips of just about every agnostic with whom I associate (there are several).

They don't realize that there's not much difference betweem themselves and atheists. Most atheists are scientists, and intellecutals or academics, in my experience. Their "belief" in the absense of God is more like a presumption grounded in common earthly experience. People may prefer to call themseleves agnostics because "atheist" has a negative connotation, partly from the misconception that they have something like faith in the absense of God. They don't. They claim only to know what their senses tell them.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Actually, I think there's not a lot of difference between agnostics and atheists. Lebowski, I love you man, but you are reflecting a common misunderstanding of atheists. Atheists who have given any thought to their belief system are really just what have been known since ancient Greek times as "materialists." You see this reflected over and over again in modern writings of atheists. Many in fact just call themselves materialists. A couple of the founders of this outlook are Democritus and Epicurus.

Atheists or materialists don't have anyting like "faith" in the absense of God. What they believe is that anything you can't perceive with your senses is of no account. In fact they do practice a complete absense of faith; it's a discipline. They don't believe that "spirituality" is anyting other than emotion, until their senses tell them otherwise, that is. If they were to experience anything like Joseph Smith's "First Vision" they'd believe in God without having to adjust their basic outlook one whit.

Democritus and Epicurus are enormously underrated in their importance to Western culture. They are the true fathers of the scientific method. Aristotle and Plato are much more revered because they were the first humans to articulate a dichotomy between the carnal body and the soul, and the early Christians and later middle ages Christians incorporated their philsophies wholesale into Christianity; Plato even much influenced Paul's development of the idea of an atonement. But Epicurus dismissed his rough contemporary Plato as spinnr of fantasies.

Again, I refer everyone to the magnificent epic poem "On the Nature of Things" also called "The Way Things Are" for a brilliant and beautiful articulation of this outlook.

Well said. And I realize that I am oversimplifying things.

Nevertheless.... when you say "I think there's not a lot of difference between agnostics and atheists.", I have to agree based on your definition of an atheist. Now I would like to read your definition of an agnostic.

When you say: "If they were to experience anything like Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' they'd believe in God without having to adjust their basic outlook one whit." I understand your point. But most atheists I have known are dead sure that there is no God and use every opportunity to ridicule believers. It seems to me that such an experience would be shattering to an atheist since it would turn their world view upside down and completely disprove the "there is no such thing as a spiritual world" mindset.

In other words, when one says "spirituality is nothing more than emotion", isn't that a statement of belief, to a degree? How can one definitively prove such a thing?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're all a little right and a little wrong.

Sovran Maxim

http://www.epicurus.net/en/principal.html

http://www.epicurus.net/en/history.html

I'll also link some Democritus in another post.

Democritus was known more as an atomist, which is what Newton actually became.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac....emocritus.html

Well, there's a lot more to Epicurianism than materialism, as these 40 tenets demonstrate. But this is what I'm talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism