Race for the presidency political discussion thread

[SuperflyTNT]

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>


Based upon this, your perception of both is a bit wrong:

The Agnostic is not committed either way, and/or believes that God is unknowable and unattainable.

The Athiest does not believe that there is a deity.

In the first case, the person knows of/about a deity but elects not to believe or disbelieve - to remain neutral. In the second, the person does not believe that there is a deity, which is the default position as one would need to be made aware of the potential existence of a deity to make the choice to believe, become Agnostic and DECIDE (that's the key) to remain neutral, or to REMAIN an athiest and choose NOT to believe that there is a deity.

Let me elaborate further:
You're born on a small island in the south Pacific. There are no religious folks of any kind anywhere. You have never been exposed to religion, or the concept of intelligent design. You are (to an outside observer) an athiest as you do not believe in a deity (and why would you - nobody ever told you better!).

Same guy, same situation BUT someone told you that there is a God, but he's all knowing...yada yada...and you're not sure whether A> you buy it, or B> that even if you DID buy it what difference it would make, so you elect to remain neutral but open. To the outside observer, you're an Agnostic.

Third verse, same as the first BUT a bible comes your way. You read it and shrug it off as the ramblings of men trying to control a population through fear. You choose not to believe in this hokey religion (and ancient weapons lol) and POOF, you've reverted to the natural state, Atheism.

All of this is fine and dandy unless you, as I, believe that people ARE born with a link to God, call it spirituality or what-have-you. If this is the case, then the athiest still remains someone who doesn't believe in anything, and the agnostic sits on the fence and hopes the lake of fire isn't real and people become oil in 20,000 years.

[InfinityMax]

Originally Posted by SuperflyTNT

Main Entry: athe·ism
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

I suppose I was referring more to the second definition - a doctrine stating that there is no deity. A doctrine is a defined set of beliefs. A doctrine is not a default position - it is one that is carefully considered (even if it is carefully considered by someone else, and then adopted). So atheism may not exactly be a religion, by definition, but rather a doctrine. I think that actually solves my previous paradox. However, I still maintain that just as we protect the right of people to be Jehovah's Witnesses or Moonies, we should protect the right of people to be atheists, whether or not their belief system is, by definition, a religion.

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

What I'm seeing here is that an agnostic is a person who hasn't made up his mind. He can't decide which he thinks is the right answer - is there a God, or not? No idea, and an unwillingness to commit either way.

I think the part of your argument with which I disagree is the idea that, in order to conceive of a greater being, you must be educated by someone else. I maintain that we are each given the opportunity to perceive a greater being, whether it is the wonder of a child or the pure beauty of nature. Children automatically believe in things that are bigger than they are. If left to their own devices, and without education from outside sources, children would have no reason to stop believing in some sort of supernatural being. So I suppose it is my opinion that neither atheism nor agnosticism are the default state - we believe until we choose not to believe.

Further, I believe that while God exists independent of man, religion is a function of society. God presents himself to humans in a form that makes sense to them. Hinduism would not have worked in Israel. American Indian religions would not have worked in ancient China. Therefore, God (for want of a more generic and yet still respectful term) presents himself to each society in a way to which they can relate. But regardless of the way he presents himself, God remains the same. What changes is how he is perceived, and the society in which he is interpreted. A warlike society will have a warlike interpretation of God. An oppressed society will have a martyr or messiah figure. A society given to learning will see God more as a wise teacher. None are necessarily wrong - but in my opinion, all are flawed, as they attempt to frame the divine being by mortal standards.

OK, that's a little rambling and WAY too ivory-tower for me (usually). But my point is that God does present himself to every person, if not always in the same way. The atheist has to choose to disbelieve. The agnostic has doubts, and can't commit either way. But the default state, in my opinion, is neither of these. The default state is belief without the need to quantify or understand. Simple faith seems like a far more natural state to me than choosing to deny the evidence God provides (at least, that's what I think. Atheists would likely disagree).

Let me elaborate further:
You're born on a small island in the south Pacific. There are no religious folks of any kind anywhere. You have never been exposed to religion, or the concept of intelligent design. You are (to an outside observer) an athiest as you do not believe in a deity (and why would you - nobody ever told you better!).

See, this is the difference between religion and belief. I think that islander knows something about God, simply because God presents himself in the absence of mortal education. You might grow up and decide you're just superstitious, but as a child, you almost have to believe in something. You just might not have a name for it until the Southern Baptists send you a missionary to tell you what to believe.

All of this is fine and dandy unless you, as I, believe that people ARE born with a link to God, call it spirituality or what-have-you. If this is the case, then the athiest still remains someone who doesn't believe in anything, and the agnostic sits on the fence and hopes the lake of fire isn't real and people become oil in 20,000 years.

It seems we disagree about very little, if anything at all. The atheist doesn't believe in anything because he decides to ignore his natural link with God - and if that natural link exists, and must be overridden in order to become an atheist, then atheism is not the default state, and does, in fact, require a conscious decision regarding religion.

And therefore, atheism should be afforded the same protection as other religions - the freedom (in this case) to not believe a danged thing. That freedom should not extend to forcing atheism on others, and the mere viewing of religious icons or ceremonies is not an infringement on an atheist's desire to not believe in them. But we cannot truly say that we protect the freedom of religion if we do not protect the freedom FROM religion.

[DrRansom]

Originally Posted by SuperflyTNT

There are indeed laws on the books that protect certain people but not others, like Affirmative Action.

And when it comes to atheism, I had a thought about protection of atheism: It is not afforded 'establishment clause' rights because BELIEVING in something is affirmative; an act that requires an affirmative action or belief where as atheism requires nothing - it is the default state of perception. Until one is told of religion, or religious ideals, one cannot have a religion and thus is VOID of religion, ie. athiest.

I thought that the laws that discriminated based on skin color had recently been overturned by a higher court. I am thinking of the affirmative action policies of state universities in considering candidated based on race.

I did not realise that we still had laws that discriminated like that.

Regardless, I see where your logic is going with the athiesm as inherrently non-religious and it makes symmantic logical sense however legally (and rightfully so) the beliefs of a person who worships and the beliefs of a person who does not, should (and are as far as I can tell) be equally protected under the law.

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

And therefore, atheism should be afforded the same protection as other religions - the freedom (in this case) to not believe a danged thing. That freedom should not extend to forcing atheism on others, and the mere viewing of religious icons or ceremonies is not an infringement on an atheist's desire to not believe in them. But we cannot truly say that we protect the freedom of religion if we do not protect the freedom FROM religion.

Well said. Eventually one religion's freedom overwhelms another's freedom from that religion. I think our current system of laws does fairly well at striking that balance to protect the freedoms of all.

[Raudulfr Shieldcrusher]

Am I unpatriotic if I don't actually say the words "under god" when I say the Pledge of Allegiance?

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Raudulfr Shieldcrusher

Am I unpatriotic if I don't actually say the words "under god" when I say the Pledge of Allegiance?

Nope.

~Aldin, indivisibly

[InfinityMax]

As long as you get the 'one nation' part, you're OK in my book.

[CupidsArt]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Nope.

~Aldin, indivisibly

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

As long as you get the 'one nation' part, you're OK in my book.

What they said /\

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by SuperflyTNT

I agree with Paragraph 2, but atheism by definition is the lack of religion, so NO, they do not get to participate as they choose not to. An athiest has no claim to show that the government is infringing their rights to non-religion because they do not have a religion to infringe.

Freedom is the ability to say 2+2=4 or, in my case, freedom is the ability to say there is no God.

I don't want the freedom to practice my atheism because there is nothing to practice. I do however, want the freedom to not practice your religion. Thanks to our constitution, I have that freedom.

States are passing laws that ban same sex marriages. Think about that for a second. The United States of America in 2008 is passing laws whose only purpose is to deny one group of citizens something that other groups of citizens already have the right to do. Of course they have their arguements, it's against God's will or we shouldn't "create" new rights. These same type of arguements where used by this country do deny interacial marriages up until the late 60's.

Bannister

[Raudulfr Shieldcrusher]

I attended my daughters Brownies meeting two nights ago to help out my wife. So, to start the meeting we said the Pledge. When we started my voice was so loud that everyone turned and looked at me. There usually aren't any men there. After a few words they turned back and looked at the flag, until the 'under god' part, which I didn't say. Since there was a distinct and noticeable gap in my words, I got a few looks. I'm not sure what that means, or if it means anything at all. But I am sure that I was the topic of conversation for some people that evening

[Bannister]

Look Barbara. It's that Shieldcrusher boy. You know what I heard? I heard he's a heathern who fornicates with goats.

You don't say Sally? I heard he performs wierd cult rituals in his back yard every Thursday. That's when they meet you know those atheists.

Bannister

[Roland]

Also, his daughters say he plays with little plastic men and creates little houses and such. Such a bad influence!

[Raudulfr Shieldcrusher]

I have no problem with anyone exercising their right to practice whatever religion they want. Worship a frog for all I care. As long as you don't force it on me and it doesn't cause anyone any harm, go for it. Freedom of religion. But, as soon as you start to force it on me I'll fight back, and hard.