Science, Atheism, Theory, Fact - Definitions, Meanings, and More

[Sum1sgruj]

Before I continue (this is becoming a repetitive notion for me, but I guess there's only so many variations of saying it )
I would like to state that I do not falter with criticism, even if it can sometimes seem redundant from my perspective. I love knowledge and continue to push it no matter the discrepancies. However, I will bring to light any discrepancy for what it is if it is not fully merited. If someone claims I have insulted them and I feel it is only being used as a tool to rally others against my knowledge, I will not let it go unstated.
This thread is for the unbiased ones. We are very intelligent. Let's not get too fanatical here. If anyone was thoroughly insulted, I apologize.
Now on to the discussion

At no point does evolution suggest that nature will somehow "know" a rabbit should become faster - it's simply that when genetic diversion occurs in a way that makes some rabbits faster, those rabbits are more likely to survive and breed.

The rabbit becomes faster because after many millenia of running, it becomes more adaptable to do so. Evolution is the advancement of creatures within their repeated survival patterns. As I mentioned earlier, people are getting taller. This is due to us constantly reaching. Why would any creature develop wings? There is no reason why such a thing would develop. To top it off, birds are in fact allegedly descendants of dinosaurs.

How did we reach this conclusion? Fossils. The few fossils we've found somehow sparks a far fetched idea of a billion year evolution sequence.
This is no different than any other extreme theory in science and shouldn't be accounted for as a dismissal of creationism just yet.

I fear you are incredibly out of date with what evolutionists "think". The theory you refer to was last considered seriously in the 80's. That would be like one of us dismissing what is in the bible because it claims the world is flat - that hasn't been the churches interpretation for a long time now =)

That's right. It was dismissed and no real explanation currently sits on the table.

We can hardly say mars has been explored. That's like saying someone has searched a few dozen square miles of the nevada desert and is now aware of every species of life to ever live on earth. There is no trace because we haven't been able to *look*.

Every part that has been discovered has been found to be completely sterile, devoid of absolutely anything. I was merely putting to light the desperation of evolutionists. The only beacon of possibility of life is marred with extreme lack of evidence. Trenches and traces of sodium can easily be accounted for with other theories.
The icecaps have been proven to be made of carbon dioxide, which makes a whole lot of sense. Every element carried a color-coding that can be observed by astronomers. This is how we know that hydrogen, for example, is the most common element in the universe.

There is no supporting evidence the earth is 6,000 years old. No dating techniques show this. No geology, physics, chemistry or biology suggests this is the age of the earth.

Please feel free to show some if there is any, but i've never been able to find it

This concept is commonly ill-made. There is no proving the Earth is only 6000 years old. This was already the general assumption. the aim is to disprove it, which is poorly done on all scientific accounts. As I said before, with educated reasoning, no dating technique has been proven to be competent. It's comparison built on theory.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

People are getting taller due to changes in diet, not us constantly reaching. In areas of the word where rice has been the staple of the diet, people are small (see much of asia). In parts of the world where starches and red meat are the staples, people are taller.

A change in diet is a contributing factor. To say it is the primary reason would be to say that rabbits got faster due to eating more, lets say, carrots. Their diet maybe gave them bucked teeth, but not augmented hind legs.

This again demonstrates that your knowledge of evolution comes from flawed sources - there is never a "REASON" why something would develop - it's simply that often in a species existence there will be some genetic diversification - if for any number of reasons this becomes widespread (attractive to other members of the species for instance, or conferring an advantage in feeding etc) then it has the chance to develop further - there does NOT have to be a clear cut "advantage" in terms of feeding or survival for a trait to continue to evolve - see blonde hair amongst humans as an example.

Change in environment causes changes in diet and survival gambits. By extension, these things cause genetic diversion. There is no rationality of a species gaining the ability to fly over time. Did the first living thing have wings? This would have to be the case to even merit such a concept. It simply cannot be a product of environment, diet, survival gambits, etc.
Evolution does not have a mind of it's own, it is a product of species vs environment.
Blonde hair is a product of woman gaining higher estrogen levels. This was, in turn, brought on to their descendants. This is the popular evolutionist's take on it anyways.
What extreme change in any given creature would warrant their arms to turn into wings if it takes fluctuation of a primary hormone to change a relevantly obsolete trait such as blonde hair? Even over the course of millions of years, complete with theoretical, otherwise non-existent variations of the species at hand, it makes no sense.
The idea is absurd. Darwin was right about basic natural selection, it's just too bad he built such an asinine theorem around the concept.

Correct. When science finds a theory is flawed, it abandons it. This is in contrast to creationism, which when confronted with masses of evidence that the age of the earth is older than they think, ignore it and just claim their theory is right anyway.

Our exploration of mars is roughly the same as exploring a few dozen square miles - less than 0.000001% of the surface of mars. Any traces of life on mars will be buried deep - anything on or near the surface would have been obliterated by radiation from the sun ater Mars atmosphere was stripped off.

Either way you look at it, there is a 0.000001% chance that life ever existed on Mars. The entire planet is iron, rust, and carbon dioxide. Traces of nitrogen and sodium does very little to spark much interest. the idea has become somewhat outdated since we gained the ability to find out the elements/substances of the Martian makeup.
If you look at the history of the Bible, you will see that it is only discounted by theory. There is no actual fact that goes against it.
Obviously, evolutionists think that time can evolve a lie into a truth as well.

Sorry, but you cannot simply make up a number, then claim everyone else must prove it wrong.

Yes I can. It is the number of human history. It has already 'claimed' itself, it's science that is on the contrary.

EVERY dating technique says creationism is incorrect, your response to this is to say they must all be wrong - yet you cannot provide an alternative which proves creationism correct.

I never said creationism was correct. If I did, I would have ever flaunted the idea that I'm a pure agnostic.
In order for radioactive dating techniques to work, you have to know the starting amount of radiation within the organism from the start. Carbon-14, for example, fluctuates in the atmosphere, which by extension, the air we breath and the food we eat.
The same goes for inorganic material, which is even more variable because it endures any and every condition, including heavier radiation from other objects and being in the elements in general.
But that's not it. The real killer is right here:
How the hell can you tell how old the carbon-14 was before it entered the body, or any other radioactive element at that? This, in my book, renders dating obsolete.

The only reason radioactive dating is held in high esteem is strictly because it fits into the ideas of evolution, much like the incredible amounts of missing links and other far fetched ideas that patch it.

Please explain how coal, oil etc has developed in 6000 years.

I explained this earlier. If God were to create life on a planet, He would make it livable. The planet would be highly volatile if it were 'new'.
This is actually a statement that protects creationism at every angle, which ironically for me went unnoticed until now
But I'm not going to fall back on that idea, as I have enough rationality to improvise.
Fossil fuels can be made in a controlled setting. It simply does not take millions of years for it to be formed naturally. Even having to explain this is an absurdity in itself. They are deemed to be millions of years old through dating techniques.
The flavor of irony.

As far as the creationism goes however, a great flood can account for all fossil fuels through pressure and de-oxygenation.
This is something not to be taken lightly because it makes a lot of sense. Since dating techniques are unverified, saying that there are fish fossils on the tops of mountains paints a pretty ominous picture for an atheist, dropped at the slightest idea presented by science.

Please explain your alternative to einsteins theory of relativity, since atomic clocks, which operate on the exact same principle as carbon dating, proved relativity correct.

Atomic clocks do not operate the same way as carbon dating. They are two entirely different things actually. Atomic clocks work by the speed and pattern of an atom's movement. Radioactive dating works by the decay of atoms as the particles within them change and/or replace another. This is why uranium literally turns into another element (lead) when it is depleted for example.
Einstein's relativity does not get along with much of particle physics. The rule of thumb for mass-energy equivalence works for radioactive decay, but it does not venture into half life or any other aspects of still phenomenal workings of the atom, such as why radioactive particles change in the first place. There is no way of knowing which atoms will decay starts first and which ones will delay, which is something radioactive dating faces. There are too many variables to account for accuracy.
Even the Standard Model only works if you allow variables. Adding insult to injury, radioactive dating also faces this as well.


I have monumental arguments on radioactive dating, and yet it is still assumed that the technique is reliable. And with no factual presentation. I have also provided an educated theorem on the ideas of both evolution and creationism.
I think it is time for someone else to take the hot seat, as certain people are getting so critical that they are making blatantly false remarks on what I have posted. In no way have I said science is wrong because the Bible says so. What merits that statement, seriously?
And obviously, I am the most open minded person on this thread. I've been answering every inquiry in the best of logic.
I'm not the one taking a side, I'm actually, ironically, the only one seeing both sides.So I wouldn't be jumping the gun on who's close minded.
Just a friendly reminder.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Just a couple things before I start this post. While I feel that none of my requests have been genuinely honored, and the discussion is only getting more absurd, I'm posting in honor of DragonByte Tech, who's keeping calm and rational while continuing the discussion. That being said, lets go over a couple of pro-tips that all of the future posters in here should keep in mind as we continue this whole thing. At the end of this post, I'm going to suggest a few new topics of conversation, as I don't have much to say on the current one (DragonByte Tech is doing a better job covering science than I could, so I'm leaving it to him)

Tip 1: I agree with the "Note: Please try to make sure thi doesn't degenerate into a "you are bashing the strawman..." "No You are!!" type thread. Lets stick to debating the topic at hand =) " statement 100%, so lets address how we should handle logical fallacies. If you see one (be it in the post of a person you are arguing with, the post of someone on your side of the current debate, or in your own post because you weren't paying attention at the time and caught it after the fact) quote the specific section that is the fallacy, explain why it is the fallacy and move on. If you're on the receiving end of this, by all means defend why what you said was not a fallacy, or rework it so it's no longer a fallacy.

Tip 2: Being or feeling insulted does not justify insulting others. Having people use logical fallacies while arguing with you does not justify their use. I can't speak for everyone here, but if I'm insulting people or using fallacies, I want to know. So please, tell me, but don't take me doing it as good reason to do it right back.

Tip 3: While there's no official "hot seat" in this thread, the unofficial one is going to go to whoever makes claims that the rest of us don't see any evidence for. Or want to see the evidence for (even when people post something that agrees with me, I occasionally want to see how they arrived at their conclusion). Basically, we all need to be willing to "show our work" as it were, so that other people can see how we arrived at our conclusions. How you arrived at a conclusion is just as important as what the conclusion is. Now, if we want to do a hot seat style discussion, where someone takes a point that they may or may not actually believe in, and other people want to attack it from a variety of angles (regardless of what they may or may not actually believe in), I think that could be a ton of fun. That being said, I don't think this is the thread for it, so if someone's into that, please make a thread and I'll be happy to jump in on the fun.

Change in environment causes changes in diet and survival gambits. By extension, these things cause genetic diversion. There is no rationality of a species gaining the ability to fly over time. Did the first living thing have wings? This would have to be the case to even merit such a concept. It simply cannot be a product of environment, diet, survival gambits, etc.
Evolution does not have a mind of it's own, it is a product of species vs environment.
Blonde hair is a product of woman gaining higher estrogen levels. This was, in turn, brought on to their descendants. This is the popular evolutionist's take on it anyways.
What extreme change in any given creature would warrant their arms to turn into wings if it takes fluctuation of a primary hormone to change a relevantly obsolete trait such as blonde hair? Even over the course of millions of years, complete with theoretical, otherwise non-existent variations of the species at hand, it makes no sense.
The idea is absurd. Darwin was right about basic natural selection, it's just too bad he built such an asinine theorem around the concept.

Two things here. First, you are aware that random mutations cause genetic diversity, right? Also, I've never heard of the estrogen/blonde thing. Where did you hear that, I'm genuinely curious?

Second, lets not resort to insulting dead people. It's not terribly polite, especially when you're not familiar with their works firsthand (I'm assuming you haven't read the origin of species, as you made no effort to correct DragonByte).

Either way you look at it, there is a 0.000001% chance that life ever existed on Mars. The entire planet is iron, rust, and carbon dioxide. Traces of nitrogen and sodium does very little to spark much interest. the idea has become somewhat outdated since we gained the ability to find out the elements/substances of the Martian makeup.
If you look at the history of the Bible, you will see that it is only discounted by theory. There is no actual fact that goes against it.
Obviously, evolutionists think that time can evolve a lie into a truth as well.

I'm going to assume you meant "never existed," so correct me if I'm wrong on that. To point out the logical troubles with such a statement, let's apply it to something else: If there's a 0.000001% chance that the Bible is incorrect, then it's okay to assume that it's completely wrong? There's a pretty big leap there, and I'm not sure that the two statements are connected by any logic. If there's some that I'm just not seeing, please show your work.

Please, mind the insults. Insulting an entire group of people by saying they are fabricating information is a bit much.

Yes I can. It is the number of human history. It has already 'claimed' itself, it's science that is on the contrary.

What does this even mean? What is "the number of human history?" And after I know what it is, how is it "claimed?"

I never said creationism was correct. If I did, I would have ever flaunted the idea that I'm a pure agnostic.
In order for radioactive dating techniques to work, you have to know the starting amount of radiation within the organism from the start. Carbon-14, for example, fluctuates in the atmosphere, which by extension, the air we breath and the food we eat.
The same goes for inorganic material, which is even more variable because it endures any and every condition, including heavier radiation from other objects and being in the elements in general.
But that's not it. The real killer is right here:
How the hell can you tell how old the carbon-14 was before it entered the body, or any other radioactive element at that? This, in my book, renders dating obsolete.

You are aware we're not dating the individual atoms, right? I just want to be sure.

The only reason radioactive dating is held in high esteem is strictly because it fits into the ideas of evolution, much like the incredible amounts of missing links and other far fetched ideas that patch it.

I've said this before, and I'm already feeling sorry that I went back on my decision to stay uninvolved until you cut out the fallacies and such, but I'm going to say it again: what evidence do you have that dating techniques are being propped up because they say what scientists want them to and not because they are good science based on sound theories? Unless we're saying that scientists do not have any interest in actually understanding how things work (after all, germ theory hasn't accomplished much, huh?) and adapting their theories to match new data.

As far as the creationism goes however, a great flood can account for all fossil fuels through pressure and de-oxygenation.
This is something not to be taken lightly because it makes a lot of sense. Since dating techniques are unverified, saying that there are fish fossils on the tops of mountains paints a pretty ominous picture for an atheist, dropped at the slightest idea presented by science.

You did read Emyu's explanation of plate tectonics, right? Fish fossils on the tops of mountains is actually pretty awesome for atheism/science. Unless there's an explanation for how the fish fossils got inside of the solid rock on the tops of mountains (water doesn't apply a lot of pressure when there's only 22.5 feet of it above something).

I have monumental arguments on radioactive dating, and yet it is still assumed that the technique is reliable. And with no factual presentation. I have also provided an educated theorem on the ideas of both evolution and creationism.
I think it is time for someone else to take the hot seat, as certain people are getting so critical that they are making blatantly false remarks on what I have posted. In no way have I said science is wrong because the Bible says so. What merits that statement, seriously?
And obviously, I am the most open minded person on this thread. I've been answering every inquiry in the best of logic.
I'm not the one taking a side, I'm actually, ironically, the only one seeing both sides.So I wouldn't be jumping the gun on who's close minded.
Just a friendly reminder.

Like I said before, if you want to make claims, you need to be able to back them up. That is why you are in the unofficial hot seat: you are making claims, providing no evidence, and then providing incorrect information when questioned on it.

To be fair, you have never said "Science is wrong because it disagrees with the bible. I have no better test and i have no way to show it is wrong, but it just is" in any direct fashion. In fact, the whole thing about the Bible was probably jumping the gun a little bit. But you have heavily implied it, and you have said things to the effect of "Science is wrong because I say so."

Lets look at a couple now:
- "fossil records don't mean shit as of right now "
- "Yes I can. It is the number of human history. It has already 'claimed' itself, it's science that is on the contrary. "
- "The only reason radioactive dating is held in high esteem is strictly because it fits into the ideas of evolution, much like the incredible amounts of missing links and other far fetched ideas that patch it."
- "The idea is absurd. Darwin was right about basic natural selection, it's just too bad he built such an asinine theorem around the concept."
- "It speaks for itself to be perfectly honest. It's very easy to see the flaws in these theories. The same thing can be seen with many others in physics, where a thousand ideas spark from a single fact and from there it all hits the fan. Eventually, the theories become obsolete and are patched up with new ideas to remain in the circle of science."

So, no, you haven't said science is wrong because the Bible says so; DragonByte was being a bit rash in that. But you have directly implied that science is incorrect because you think it is, without providing an explanation (or without providing a correct explanation, in the case of evolution).

But lets get to the other reason I broke down and posted (beyond my desire to back up DragonByte), this quote, right here:

And obviously, I am the most open minded person on this thread. I've been answering every inquiry in the best of logic.
I'm not the one taking a side, I'm actually, ironically, the only one seeing both sides.So I wouldn't be jumping the gun on who's close minded.
Just a friendly reminder.

Insulting others does not make you correct. Not in the slightest. Statements such as "obviously, I am the most open minded person on this thread" do not serve in the best interest of logic. They are a logical fallacy known as ad hominem. You are claiming that everyone in this thread is less open minded than you and insulting them to make yourself look superior (and by extension, your argument look superior). This is not a matter of misunderstanding as you claimed the last incident was (and even apologized for, which I appreciate), this is a matter of you directly insulting people just looking to enjoy some rational debate. So now, I'm going to quote myself, from my last post: "if you're going to insult people (even if you're doing it as subtly as possible), please just stop posting." Let's see that again in caps lock and without the unnecessary parenthetical information, just in case anyone missed out on it: "IF YOU'RE GOING TO INSULT PEOPLE, PLEASE JUST STOP POSTING." I did not feel this to be an unreasonable request, be it in regards to debate (avoiding fallacies) or general decency (not insulting others).

That is not in the slightest bit friendly. It is openly rude and insulting. So, I'll make this perfectly clear: please do not post anymore in this thread. If you want to do so, please, take a few days, calm down, and carefully go over the things you want to say. Unless I am completely mistaken, the other posters do not enjoy being insulted, and are not interested in dealing with you using fallacies and unsupported claims in your posts.

I do not think this requires a moderator's attention, though emotions seem to be getting a bit high - all it needs is a chance for people to calm down and reassess their methods. So, lets switch to a different bit of conversation, still relevant to the original intent of the thread, but moving away from this until the insults can be shelved.

I would not like to see this thread deleted, I would like to continue with interesting discussion. So, lets continue with interesting discussion and avoid a flame war.
________________________________

Some new questions:

- Are there any current religions that would qualify as theories? If so, why?

- If not, could a religion be made that fits the criteria of a theory? Or would it stop being a religion at that point?

- Atheism/Agnosticism/Science - definitions, how do the three interact, and are they belief systems?

- This one fits under the "and More" part of the thread title: Has anyone considered that maybe Atheism and Agnosticism are doing it wrong? I don't mean in a belief sense, I mean in a social sense. Religions have shown remarkable success at converting people by incorporating their holidays. I'm not saying that this should be a conversion method for Atheism or Agnosticism, but I'm asking: where are the awesome parties? Pagans had some rocking orgies/feasts/celebrations back in their day, doesn't that sound like a good time? Part of the appeal of religion likely lies in its social aspects, so why should non-religious people be out of the fun?

- Why are so many Atheists assholes (easy examples: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens)? I love a lot of their works, but what is to be gained out of contradicting Wheaton's Law?

That's it for the moment. I'll post my own views on all of this once a couple other posts are in (mostly, I'm supposed to be tidying up a bit, and my wife will kill me if I don't, so I'll be back to this later).

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Let's dig into the concepts of of everything I have posted. I have aknowledged many specific ideas of evolution, compared and contrasted them, and brought on an ample idea that they conflict, contradict, and and mass unto each other resulting in general inaccuracy and unrealistic declarations.
And I have insulted every scientist and atheist because of this?
It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If I make a clear argument on something, I expect it to be logically comprehended and analyzed before anyone jumps the gun on it period. This is a scientific respect that somehow has been neglected due to sheer denial of exploration. I don't know what kind of 'proof' anyone could be looking for. To me, that just kind of shows a lack of knowledge on the subject altogether. If I say, for example, that carbon-14 atoms fluctuate in tissue and is absorbed and leaked continually just like any other substance would, and reinforce it with the idea that it is not known the exact age of the element before it is even absorbed, it is up to others to marinate on it and provide some food for thought on the claim. Telling me to provide proof repeatedly over and over with the same ridiculous remarks when I have already painted a solid claim is what is insulting. I've been fortifying my claims with more and more evidence and logic since my first post, and all I'm getting from most people is, to be perfectly honest,, a bunch of crap.
So don't tell me I need to calm down or whatever. It is others who can't seem to handle a debate.
And so your last post, Jquestionmark, failed miserably to show anything that I've said is wrong. This is a perfect example. No, I'm in the hot seat because it's hard to contend with what I present, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
So if my logic is too much for this debate, than count me out because I am not going to continue to go in this circular pattern. It's very unfair and desserves no explanation on my part. I think it's time someone else provides, as I said before. Instead of saying I'm wrong, back it up. I have obviously shown this unto everyone, as I explain a given detail with logic, not 'prove it' or 'that's just false'. Putting it on me is not only backward, it is extremely hypocritical. It's like I'm paying the penalty of others shallow detail.
So like I said, if what I say cannot be reasonably taken into account and argued against in a intelligent matter, count me out.

 

[Jquestionmark]

- Are there any current religions that would qualify as theories? If so, why?

This is a tough one. The problem seems to be the definition of religion. So, lets start there:

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

This is a pretty particular definition, and actually helps display a lot of things I have issues with when it comes to religion. Personally, it seems a bit much to try to guess at any purpose to the universe (not that there even needs to be one, if you ask me), the cause is a problem we won't be able to tackle just yet, and the nature is far better covered by science. The purpose thing often comes down to human arrogance: the assumption often seems to be that the universe was made for us. It seems to me that the universe was not made for life like us, but instead, we are the way we are because it's the way life could occur in this universe. To quote Lawrence Krauss: "IF there are many different universes, and the energy of empty space can vary in each one, then only those in which it is not much greater than what we measure will galaxies form... and only then will stars and planets form, and only then astronomers...."

Superhuman agencies simply aren't necessary for the universe coming into existence, and even if they were involved in its creation, there's no guarantee that they'd be around anymore.

As far as devotional work and ritual observances - ritual observances, I'll come back to later, in another part of this post. Devotional work is where I take issue. I see no need to bow down, subservient to my parents (who were kind enough to give birth to me), so why would I bow down to a likely fictional creature that is not guaranteed to still exist? There are a lot of things and ideas I love, but I take what I can from them, appreciate it, and put it to use rather than waste time thanking them.

And the moral code. Ahh, the moral codes forwarded by religions. This, more than anything, is where it all comes crashing down for me. The problem here is, even more than science, no moral answer is ever an absolute. As things change in society, moral codes need to be re-evaluated (same as when new evidence is present, a theory that relates to it needs to be re-evaluated), and as it currently stands, religions are in the habit of deciding on something and sticking with it, evidence and change be damned. This is where religion comes into direct conflict with the idea of theory. Theories change when new facts are presented, but religion tries to bend the facts to their pre-established definitions. In the realm of science, it is easy to see the blatant contradictions, so as far as I'm concerned, religions can say what they will on that. But when you try to take a moral code and force it on society generation after generation, allowing no adaptation for new understandings, social situations, social technologies, then you inhibit the growth of entire societies. Good example: if not for the absurd ideas presented in the bible regarding homosexuality (though incest is totally cool - weird, huh?), I can't imagine the rights of a huge group of people being denied world-round. Unlike science, people continue to stick with the moral information presented by religions long after the world has changed drastically from when those ideas were presented. This, in my opinion, keeps religion from being classified as theory - it is wholly unwilling to adapt to new information.

But, lets not stop there, how about a different definition of religion. This one seems a little better:

"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects."

This is actually broad enough that we can work with it a little. Unlike the previous one, it's very open ended, even to the point that science would be included (now, before we get all excited about scientists having beliefs, let's think about just what type of beliefs a scientist would have to have. We have to believe that things exist outside of ourselves, since sensory information is not accurate all the time, we're left believing it is most of the time, otherwise we can't function. That's the kind of beliefs that scientists have: the base assumptions that allow us to interact with the world around us.). Ultimately, if we're going with an answer this broad, then quite a bit can be considered a religion (political parties, for example). That, and while theories encourage practices (such as germ theory), they aren't included in the theory. Even with this, the definitions just don't quite fit - science would be a religion, but religions still wouldn't be theories.

- If not, could a religion be made that fits the criteria of a theory? Or would it stop being a religion at that point?

The only way we're going to get a religion that could be a theory is if we're willing to drop the "practices" part of the definition. Unfortunately, I feel like that probably does reach the breaking point. A religion that involves no action (be it moral, social, technological, or anything to that effect) is really no different from fiction. Just because we believe in it, if it has no effect on our behaviour, then it's like thinking Pokemon is real. Theory only informs us - even in our broader definition, religion needs practices. Unfortunately, to me at least, the two definitions look incompatible.

- Atheism/Agnosticism/Science - definitions, how do the three interact, and are they belief systems?

Just grabbing definitions from the dictionary:

Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there are no god(s).
Agnosticism - an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.
Science - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Atheism, by definition, is a belief system. It is the affirmation that there are no god(s), and even if it's based on evidence, it is a belief. Getting into evidence and factual support for it and other belief systems, and how they compare and contrast is a whole other thing that is best left to another time or thread. It's also worth noting, if genuine evidence could be produced for god(s), it's possible many atheists (being scientists as well) might consider conversion. Big if there, though.

Agnosticism is a little more tricky. In a way, it has become a belief system: saying that we cannot be sure of any claims to ultimate knowledge is, in and of itself, an absolute claim. At the same time though, it's not even on the belief axis, it's a way of approaching knowledge and the truth value of beliefs. Originally, it was meant to be only about knowledge, but the popular definition has turned it into a belief system about believing we can't know if other belief systems are right or not. It's a weird one.

Science is also rather tricky. the dictionary provides us with this for belief system: "faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society." The trouble with applying this to science, is the first two words: "faith based." Unless we're defining faith as "believing in something you see work 100% of the time." It's like saying that expecting to see the sun rise in the morning is a belief system. Numerous fields of physics, biology, and chemistry have proven themselves in the real world. It doesn't require faith to believe in science. That, and the beliefs in science are not fixed, they adapt to new information. Science, a belief system? Nope.

As far as how they interact: as belief systems, atheism and agnosticism disagree. If agnosticism is considered to just be a way of judging knowledge, and atheism is decently supported by evidence, they get along better, but still not that great. Agnosticism in general agrees fantastically with science, as they both concede that we don't know anything for sure. Science and atheism... science doesn't need god(s) (can't say they've come up in any theories that are actually respected), and atheism enjoys the evidence science provides for god(s) either being inactive, or not present.

- This one fits under the "and More" part of the thread title: Has anyone considered that maybe Atheism and Agnosticism are doing it wrong? I don't mean in a belief sense, I mean in a social sense. Religions have shown remarkable success at converting people by incorporating their holidays. I'm not saying that this should be a conversion method for Atheism or Agnosticism, but I'm asking: where are the awesome parties? Pagans had some rocking orgies/feasts/celebrations back in their day, doesn't that sound like a good time? Part of the appeal of religion likely lies in its social aspects, so why should non-religious people be out of the fun?

Short answer: yeah, they're definitely doing it wrong.

Long answer: religion encourages banding together based around belief, perhaps because faith-based beliefs require a huge investment. (speculation mode go) This investment requires some amount of support (it's pretty tough to believe something absurd {see Kierkegaard}), so people band together, the presence of other believers making belief easier. Combine that with the fact that such an investment results in one identifying themself as a believer. That identification, and the same identification among other believers creates a group identity very rapidly. Atheism and agnosticism don't require support: the beliefs are like grass being green. No major investment is required, as the beliefs follow from evidence, not faith. As a result, these two groups see themselves as people, and not simply parts of groups.

Unfortunately, the As and As are missing out on the fun. Youth group to learn about the bible - who cares? Hanging out with a bunch of kids your age - pretty good times, especially if you all see yourselves as part of the same group. Adults use the holidays to band together. It's all about enjoying yourself in a relaxed social setting with people that are in the same group as you.

So, here's what I think should be done: make up some new holidays, some ones worth celebrating (holidays encouraging crafts, arts, intelligent debate, food, feasting, maybe even bring back the orgies if you're into that), and enjoy them. Why not have worldwide celebrations? If atheism is going to be treated as a belief system, it should enjoy all the benefits as well.

- Why are so many Atheists assholes (easy examples: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss)? I love a lot of their works, but what is to be gained out of contradicting Wheaton's Law?

Simple answer: there's nothing to be gained from insulting people, and atheists don't want to beg and pamper to make conversions. So, they don't need to avoid insults, because they aren't looking to gain anything. Then again, they tend to be assholes even to each other. Why's that? Because they don't see any need to take any offense. They're not being assholes, they're just talking.
_______________________
Something fun, first shown to me by Emyu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Agnosticism - an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

Yes.
Reality is a box. Knowing it's contents bears no looking glass for what is beyond it, what created it, or why it's even there.
Saying that it 'just happened' is an impossible claim, rejected by any and every law of nature, and so atheism contradicts itself in trying to deny religion passage.

This is a law of uncertainty that cannot be broken.

The purpose thing often comes down to human arrogance: the assumption often seems to be that the universe was made for us. It seems to me that the universe was not made for life like us, but instead, we are the way we are because it's the way life could occur in this universe.

The Bible explains this very, very well- before such a theory. It's called vanity, and according to the Bible, Lucifer vexed this asset onto man and therefore we do not fit in this realm as we should.
There were no natural disasters spoken of in the Bible, as the Holy Lands rarely, if ever, experience them. There have been no cataclysmic events in the biblical time-line. As far as the Bible goes, our universe is as calm as a Hindu cow. It's man that stirs the world, over-populates, wars, and moves to hazardous places of the world and polluting it all the same.

The problem here is, even more than science, no moral answer is ever an absolute. As things change in society, moral codes need to be re-evaluated

The moral code of the Bible is fairer than any other code on the planet. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Cast the sick from the village, stone any blasphemer..
Fair isn't all what it's cracked up to be, and yet people still complain and long for it. The moral code of the Bible can be evaluated with the same rationale as science- break down the components and examine.
And it follows like this:
Lucifer became obsessed with vanity. God cast him from Heaven.
He tempted Eve to disobey God. This brought shame. She did not want to bear this alone, so she swayed Adam to do the same.
Their shame brought on self-consciousness- they clothed themselves.
Then they hid from God- Deception was the product of fear.
God did not punish them. They alone cursed themselves. They simply could not stay in Eden with their knowledge. They would destroy it.
God nonetheless demanded balance, and this balance has yet to be fulfilled, and so despite God's harsh laws to maintain balance, man has gone off and shot itself in the foot, scattering the world and putting up walls to defend their self-importance and ignoring the catastrophe that put them there in the first place. So in the eyes of God, man-made morals are a bad joke.

The only way we're going to get a religion that could be a theory is if we're willing to drop the "practices" part of the definition.

Religion is not a theory, it's a 'truth'. This is why it is practiced among it's followers. Nobody practices a theory. Saying that religion is theory is contradictory, drawing an adverse conclusion from theory's definition.

religion encourages banding together based around belief, perhaps because faith-based beliefs require a huge investment.

Key word: perhaps.
Perhaps it's because it is a 'truth' that people feel they have to follow, and so they teach others the same so they, to, can know the truth.

Nonetheless, science works in the same exact way. If there was only one atheist on Earth, you can guarantee that others would follow in their 'truth'.
The reason why it has become so popular is because science's 'truth' is found in the one place where people can look- regardless if it is a box.

This is something that somehow falls through the cracks at the presence of scientific logic, which ironically, avoids the subject altogether.



Agnosticism is a much more intuitive take. With atheism, it is very difficult to know both sides of the coin, and therefore it seems to me that it and theism both share a common gambit.
I personally feel that science only patches itself to avoid falsification,, and religion is unfalsifiable no matter what science says. Every argument I have made in this entire thread has pointed in that direction.
This is why I am agnostic.

 

[der Astronom]

Actually, there is a distinction between agnostic and gnostic, and atheism and theism--you can't compare agnostic with being atheist or theist because they're completely different comparisons. So you can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist, or apply a/gnosticism to theism. Here's how it works:

If you are an agnostic, it means you don't have any certainty about what you know or believe. If you are a gnostic, it means you are 100% certain about what you know and believe. So if you're an agnostic atheist, it means you don't believe in god most likely because there is no evidence for it, and you aren't actually sure if god exists; if you are a gnostic atheist, it means you leave no room for doubt that there is no god (a friend has recently pointed out to me that this position is logically absurd, and there aren't that many people I know who classify as gnostic atheists; however, this is applicable for a/gnostic theists; you can be 100% sure that god exists, or you can be unsure that god exists, but believe in him anyways)

Your knowledge about god (or several) says nothing about what your position about god is. So if you claim to be agnostic, it still says nothing about what you believe to be true, and I'm not sure if you can actually sit on the fence about that.

As for my stance on atheism, it's actually a really simple definition--atheism is a lack of religion (or lack of belief in a god or gods) in the exact same way darkness is the absence of light; darkness is not actually a state in and of itself; it's just the word you use to describe the absence of light. Likewise, anyone who says they're an atheist does not belong to any religion, and any atheist is free to hold whatever moral values they wish; you cannot hold an atheist accountable for communism for example because not all atheists are communists, and not all atheists are humanists either by extension. Atheism only describes a person's position on whether or not they think god exists. It says nothing about what they believe is moral, and therefore, fails to be a religion. It's not even much of a philosophy either.

As for science, it doesn't contain any of the main characteristics that describe religion either; it's got no authoritative or dogmatic tenets, it has its own criteria for studying things, and it consists of using a method in order to discern truths from falsehoods, but only so far as studying the natural world is concerned. You don't use science to talk about what is and isn't moral, and it says nothing about it. And anyone who studies science need not accept any of the facts discovered through science. It's a system designed to weed out falsehoods, and it consists of a progressive process which involves discovering new things that are previously unexplained instead of trying to explain everything simply because it was unexplained.

If we were to talk about creationism as a theory, I would first like to say that we are probably talking about the term theory as it is defined in science, in which case, it would be useful to define what we mean when we say scientific theory--a scientific theory is different from the casual term for theory in that it's not just any idea you might have; it's a specific, working set of ideas based on a previous hypothesis in which there is substantial evidence, and that's why it's worth studying. In that sense, creationism fails to be a theory. It fails because there isn't any substantial evidence that supports the ideas in creationism, and any reports from people attempting to support it scientifically have been rejected by the rest of the scientific community (in other words, it fails one of the fundamental aspects of science: peer review).

I suppose I probably should also have mentioned the distinction between hypothesis, theory and fact first. Anyways, a hypothesis in science is a statement that has yet to be investigated and supported with evidence. At this point, there isn't anything you can say about its truth value because it's just an assertion without any evidence. After you have studied it enough and found enough evidence for or against the hypothesis, you come to the point where you can either reject the hypothesis because the evidence you find does not support it, and you can either keep looking for the evidence, or your hypothesis has been disproved because the evidence you found contradicts the hypothesis completely, or you can keep the hypothesis and keep researching it--at this point, even if you find evidence for a hypothesis, the rest of the scientific community can't consider the hypothesis a theory until they've seen it and concluded with the same results. If everyone else sees your report about your hypothesis, did their own research about it, and came to the same conclusion, then you can call it a theory, and it actually has some merit.
When we talk about fact in science, we are often referring to the ideas and things that are known from scientific theories, but this should probably not be confused with the idea of an absolute, infallible fact because these things can still be false (or be misinterpreted under the wrong context). We call them fact because they have been well studied and so far, behave as we expect--but there is always the possibility that we might be wrong. And that's one of the important aspects of science. Falsifiability. If something is not falsifiable, it cannot be studied in science. There would be no point in asserting a hypothesis if it couldn't be false because then there's no reason to research it; it can never be wrong.

 

[Jquestionmark]

J, I like the agnosticism/gnosticism compare/contrast. It's very exciting to see someone that remembers what agnosticism actually was meant to be, instead of just the current, popular definition.

As for my stance on atheism, it's actually a really simple definition--atheism is a lack of religion (or lack of belief in a god or gods) in the exact same way darkness is the absence of light; darkness is not actually a state in and of itself; it's just the word you use to describe the absence of light. Likewise, anyone who says they're an atheist does not belong to any religion, and any atheist is free to hold whatever moral values they wish; you cannot hold an atheist accountable for communism for example because not all atheists are communists, and not all atheists are humanists either by extension. Atheism only describes a person's position on whether or not they think god exists. It says nothing about what they believe is moral, and therefore, fails to be a religion. It's not even much of a philosophy either.

Fantastic way of describing atheism. I doubt I'll be using it on the boards, but I hope you don't mind if I steal that analogy for irl conversations.

No feelings about the lack of social functions among atheists or the common atheist tendency to be an asshole (well, maybe not common, but the most well known atheists tend to be)?

 

[der Astronom]

I don't mind if you use it, and in fact, I'm sure you'll find equally good explanations for such if you search hard enough (the Atheist Experience and their wiki is a good place to look; they explain lots of things pretty well).

And speaking of the Atheist Experience, I think they're one of the bigger or more well known atheist communities out there, along with the ACA if you live in Texas, and I think there are more atheist groups out there, particularly in large cities. If you look on places like Meetup.com, you might even find a few more. Sure, there probably still are more churches out there than atheist groups, but that might simply be a reflection of the population itself (there simply are more Christians than Atheists in America). As for atheists being assholes, ja, I suppose criticizing a religion can mean you're an asshole, but that's only if you consider yourself an anti-theist, of which more than a few atheists are. However, you can still be an atheist without being an anti-theist; it's a misconception to think that being an atheist means you're also an anti-theist.

I don't know; is there any distinction you can draw between criticizing something because you realize there is a good reason for it, and just being an asshole and ripping on religion for no good reason?

 

[Jquestionmark]

And speaking of the Atheist Experience, I think they're one of the bigger or more well known atheist communities out there, along with the ACA if you live in Texas, and I think there are more atheist groups out there, particularly in large cities. If you look on places like Meetup.com, you might even find a few more. Sure, there probably still are more churches out there than atheist groups, but that might simply be a reflection of the population itself (there simply are more Christians than Atheists in America). As for atheists being assholes, ja, I suppose criticizing a religion can mean you're an asshole, but that's only if you consider yourself an anti-theist, of which more than a few atheists are. However, you can still be an atheist without being an anti-theist; it's a misconception to think that being an atheist means you're also an anti-theist.

I keep forgetting that other places actually have reasonable numbers of atheists. Here in Bellingham/Blaine area, your options are Christian (Lynden, half-way between the two has a gargantuan number of churches, and Blaine has street signs pointing the way to all of the churches in town) or Newagers.

Unfortunately, around here, there's not a lot locally speaking. Seattle has a solid group, but it's a two hour drive. I'd love to see some religious holidays subverted and made into fun events for non-believers/non-capitalists. That way even without many/any local people, the non-religious would have holidays to enjoy (talk like a pirate day is fun, but I'm longing for some full on non-religious revelries).

I don't know; is there any distinction you can draw between criticizing something because you realize there is a good reason for it, and just being an asshole and ripping on religion for no good reason?

Depends who you ask. I'd say yes. Unfortunately, most religious people are of the opinion that there is no good reason to critique religion, so for them, there's no distinction. The attitude in which it's done is often the same, regardless.

 

[der Astronom]

Well, Christmas isn't really a Christian holiday anyways; it's mostly pagan, and I can't see any reason why non theists can't celebrate it. I don't think pagans would be offended just because you wanted to borrow a few traditions from their holiday and create a more secular one; having a winter break just sounds reasonable from a secular perspective anyways.

I think religion is worthy of being criticized because it has lead people to doing things they wouldn't normally do. It has lead people to think or do things they wouldn't normally have a good reason to do, and generally, it's based off of faulty reasoning. I happen to care about what's true and what isn't, and I would like to believe as few falsehoods as possible, and as much truths as possible, and I think people need to know that religion is not a good means of discerning truth from falsehood.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Well, Christmas isn't really a Christian holiday anyways; it's mostly pagan, and I can't see any reason why non theists can't celebrate it. I don't think pagans would be offended just because you wanted to borrow a few traditions from their holiday and create a more secular one; having a winter break just sounds reasonable from a secular perspective anyways.

Some friends and I are actually currently working on this sort of thing. Pagan holidays have been the main inspiration, since crafts and feasting are still a ton of fun when purely secular. It just bums me out that there's just the pocket of us doing it (even current pagan groups seem to be a bit... schizophrenic when looked at on the whole as far as holiday celebration suggestions). Then again, like you said, it's not like christmas/yule is even really christian, so I guess many people are celebrating the secular holiday along with us.

I think religion is worthy of being criticized because it has lead people to doing things they wouldn't normally do. It has lead people to think or do things they wouldn't normally have a good reason to do, and generally, it's based off of faulty reasoning. I happen to care about what's true and what isn't, and I would like to believe as few falsehoods as possible, and as much truths as possible, and I think people need to know that religion is not a good means of discerning truth from falsehood.

Well put.

Honestly, a lot of my issues with religion come from the actions of the organizations, and not just the questionable beliefs. If someone were to sit down with me and explain what they believed and why (and it made a decent amount of sense), I'd have significant more respect for them than if they simply say "I'm {insert religion here}."

 

[der Astronom]

Some friends and I are actually currently working on this sort of thing. Pagan holidays have been the main inspiration, since crafts and feasting are still a ton of fun when purely secular. It just bums me out that there's just the pocket of us doing it (even current pagan groups seem to be a bit... schizophrenic when looked at on the whole as far as holiday celebration suggestions). Then again, like you said, it's not like christmas/yule is even really christian, so I guess many people are celebrating the secular holiday along with us.

And celebration doesn't have to be public either; there's nothing stopping people celebrating whatever holiday they want in their own private lives. Which I suspect is what most people do. I guess the reason we'd like there to be more secular celebrations is probably to encourage the idea that atheists can be spiritual without being religious; we can be fun, loving people, and just because we aren't religious doesn't mean we can't celebrate holidays.

Well put.

Honestly, a lot of my issues with religion come from the actions of the organizations, and not just the questionable beliefs. If someone were to sit down with me and explain what they believed and why (and it made a decent amount of sense), I'd have significant more respect for them than if they simply say "I'm {insert religion here}."

Actually, I like how the Atheist Experience runs its show--it addresses what you said. They encourage religious people to call and ask them to tell them what they believe, and why they believe what they believe, and what sort of justification they have to offer for it. More often than not, you find people are often unwilling to delve this far because it makes them uncomfortable to ask things like "why", and if you find even a part of their explanation the slightest bit confusing or illogical, and ask them to clarify, they often shy away or stumble, trying to find some way to explain it. I think most people just haven't really given it a thought. They've been told all these things from religion, and just assumed all of it without giving much of a thought about it.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Christmas being a pagan holiday is not exactly true in it's entirety. This is commonly misguided, and by atheists no less, who should have better knowledge of these ordeals. It's quite indecent to assume a billion Christians are following paganism and reduce agnosticism to literary junction. I have seen this happen with other terms, and it brings a resurfacing, highly irritating inquiry-- why?
Especially when the explanation is irrelevant and not even accurate. I am agnostic, not gnostic. I know what they mean,, agnosticism is just the absence of gnostic belief, stating a law of uncertainty. Gnosticism states a precursor that fills that uncertainty with a concept of divine workings. They are alike in many ways, but they are also different. Agnostics do not have an ultimatum in their beliefs.
I have no idea how this misconception comes about.
Which makes it even less surprising how many fail to see 'christ' in the term 'christmas'.
I'm not trying to bite anyone's head off here, but these things should be recognized.:

The holiday was not called Christmas until centuries after Jesus when Christians replaced this day with celebrating him instead. So in all technicality, it may have been a pagan religion, but no longer is. Santa Claus (a modernized depiction of a past alleged god) and Christmas trees are relics of pagan ritual, no doubt, but they are not worshiped or demanded either to celebrate Christmas.

The Old Testament speaks on the pagan holiday as false, as it involved ideas such as the stag god. After Jesus, however, this demand by God was no longer a requirement so long as Christians accepted Jesus as their savior and Him as the one and only God.
Thus, the holiday converted to Christmas. To praise Christ's birthday (which was actually in the late summer or fall)
So was Christmas a pagan holiday, yes. Is it now.. not, really..

Now I personally think that Christians should still not be free falling on grace just because it was promised to them. Having Christmas trees and remnants of paganism around certainly does not appease God. Nonetheless, Christmas should not be flaunted as a pagan holiday.

 

[der Astronom]

Christmas being a pagan holiday is not exactly true in it's entirety. This is commonly misguided, and by atheists no less, who should have better knowledge of these ordeals. It's quite indecent to assume a billion Christians are following paganism and reduce agnosticism to literary junction. I have seen this happen with other terms, and it brings a resurfacing, highly irritating inquiry-- why?

Actually, a friend recently held similar views as you did regarding Christianity, and had the same doubts when I told her that Christmas had pagan roots. So I looked up the roots of Christmas again, and there is nothing particularly Christian about it; there's no evidence that it ever was Christian to begin with. Jesus' birthday was nowhere near December, the Christmas tree originated from a different tradition besides Christianity, as did the mistletoe, and giving presents is nothing new; the Romans or Egyptians probably did something similar. The only time where Christianity plays into this is when they adopted Christmas as their own. But you will still find some Christians rejecting Christmas because they were aware that it was a Pagan holiday to begin with. But if you still insist on celebrating Christmas for Jesus' birthday, you're welcome to do so. However, the fact that I choose to give gifts to people or decorate a tree on Christmas need not be because I care about Jesus or because I think god exists; why not simply give gifts to people because you care about them, and decorate a tree because it's fun, and it looks pretty?

The holiday was not called Christmas until centuries after Jesus when Christians replaced this day with celebrating him instead. So in all technicality, it may have been a pagan religion, but no longer is. Santa Claus (a modernized depiction of a past alleged god) and Christmas trees are relics of pagan ritual, no doubt, but they are not worshiped or demanded either to celebrate Christmas.

But I don't have to treat Christmas as celebrating the birth of Jesus, and that's entirely the point; when you said we don't worship Santa, we are just celebrating Christmas because it's fun. In fact, I don't even need to have a good reason to celebrate Christmas because it doesn't harm anyone, and by celebrating Christmas, I'm not saying anything about what I believe or don't believe anymore than liking a song that happens to be Christian says about my beliefs; I can like songs like Handel's Messiah or any number of Bach's religious works and still be as infidel as I like (and for the record, I enjoy them on the merits of their technical aspects; not the religious ones). Being an atheist doesn't limit what I can and can't enjoy.

The Old Testament speaks on the pagan holiday as false, as it involved ideas such as the stag god. After Jesus, however, this demand by God was no longer a requirement so long as Christians accepted Jesus as their savior and Him as the one and only God.
Thus, the holiday converted to Christmas. To praise Christ's birthday (which was actually in the late summer or fall)
So was Christmas a pagan holiday, yes. Is it now.. not, really..

So it's not a pagan holiday, despite the fact that Santa Claus and Christmas trees, which have not much to do with Jesus still persist. And it doesn't matter if you think Christmas is Christian now; Christmas has become so commercialized, it's basically just a hallmark holiday. It's not even about celebrating Jesus anymore.

Now I personally think that Christians should still not be free falling on grace just because it was promised to them. Having Christmas trees and remnants of paganism around certainly does not appease God. Nonetheless, Christmas should not be flaunted as a pagan holiday.

And I see no reason why it needs to be flaunted as Christian either. Basically, your reasoning for calling it Christian to me has no good basis--so the Old Testament says that pagan holidays are "false", and therefore, people think they have a good reason to replace it with Jesus worship? Well, what if god is false? I don't think it's a good idea, and to think you can call something off as false and replace it with something that's not any more true is logically absurd, and if you think that's why Christmas should be Christian now, I don't think it deserves it. And it doesn't matter anyways because Christmas now has become so commercialized that it's become secular.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I edited my last post with a full explanation on agnosticism/gnosticism, which will suffice for me as I am no longer speaking on the definition of my own views. I have LLI and therefore cannot limit my logic to an unproven ultimatum.

And I see no reason why it needs to be flaunted as Christian either. Basically, your reasoning for calling it Christian to me has no good basis--so the Old Testament says that pagan holidays are "false", and therefore, people think they have a good reason to replace it with Jesus worship? Well, what if god is false? I don't think it's a good idea, and to think you can call something off as false and replace it with something that's not any more true is logically absurd, and if you think that's why Christmas should be Christian now, I don't think it deserves it. And it doesn't matter anyways because Christmas now has become so commercialized that it's become secular.

You speak in circles. What does authentication have anything to do with a religious holiday?
And it seem like the terms pagan and secular are being twisted here. Paganism is a concept of a god/s, either way Christmas is a religious holiday. Christians took the holiday and changed it in the 3rd century AD. It's not like it's anything new..
Definitely not something an atheist should even feel the need to contend with anyways. No one is forcing them to put up a Christmas tree, and the followers of the pagan aspect no longer do so. Jews, to be specific,.

 

[der Astronom]

I edited my last post with a full explanation on agnosticism/gnosticism, which will suffice for me as I am no longer speaking on the definition of my own views. I have LLI and therefore cannot limit my logic to an unproven ultimatum.

When speaking of terms, the idea is that we are speaking of an agreed term that everybody knows and is aware of, including the context. Which means you also agree not to switch the context or meaning of the word halfway through your explanation. That would be considered sophistry if you did.

Not that I'm accusing you of anything, but I just wanted it made clear that we often talk about and work with terms everybody should know about and agree with, and not terms that are only exclusive to one person, or which are not being used inconsistently. Such discussions don't go anywhere.

Especially when the explanation is irrelevant and not even accurate. I am agnostic, not gnostic. I know what they mean,, agnosticism is just the absence of gnostic belief, stating a law of uncertainty. Gnosticism states a precursor that fills that uncertainty with a concept of divine workings. They are alike in many ways, but they are also different. Agnostics do not have an ultimatum in their beliefs.
I have no idea how this misconception comes about.

And I fail to see why my definition of a/gnostic is significantly different from yours, except that I disagree that gnosticism is necessarily divine; a gnostic simply asserts that his knowledge is 100% certain.

Which makes it even less surprising how many fail to see 'christ' in the term 'christmas'.
I'm not trying to bite anyone's head off here, but these things should be recognized.:

And why does that matter what you call Christmas? I agree that etymology tells us a lot about how we arrive at the common usage of a word, but it's not proof of anything other than the history of the term's usage.

You speak in circles. What does authentication have anything to do with a religious holiday?

I not only disagree that Christmas is still Christian, but that I believe it had no good reason for replacing the original pagan holiday in the first place. And that's also another reason why I don't have to celebrate Christmas as Jesus' birthday.

And it seem like the terms pagan and secular are being twisted here. Paganism is a concept of a god/s, either way Christmas is a religious holiday. Christians took the holiday and changed it in the 3rd century AD. It's not like it's anything new..

I said Christmas was becoming more secular because of the way it's being treated as a holiday now. When people celebrate Christmas, they're not busy being worried about worshipping Jesus; they're busy rushing out to buy Christmas presents, food, Christmas decorations and lights, and baking food and other festivity things. And because all these activities are not exclusive to religious groups only, I said they were secular. I have no idea why you think this means they're becoming more pagan.

Definitely not something an atheist should even feel the need to contend with anyways. No one is forcing them to put up a Christmas tree, and the followers of the pagan aspect no longer do so. Jews, to be specific,.

Being an atheist does not restrict what I can and cannot contend myself with; I can contend myself with how people choose to celebrate Christmas because then I can decide if I want to participate in it (because whether or not I choose to doesn't in any way violate the fact that I don't believe in a god or gods). It's not even that I'm being forced to put up a Christmas tree; it's that I can choose to put up a Christmas tree if I wanted to. If I think it's a fun thing to do, maybe I will do it without worrying about whether or not it's good for my religion (how could I? I don't even belong to one). And if I don't, I wouldn't care about it. So in other words, I can choose to celebrate Christmas by decorating Christmas trees without putting up the lights or mistletoe, and give presents, but not sing carols, and another atheist might decide he wants lights on his house but not put up Christmas trees, and not give presents. It doesn't matter because none of us are obligated to doing these things, but not being obligated doesn't mean I can't do them if I feel I want to anyways.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

a gnostic simply asserts that his knowledge is 100% certain.

Gnosticism teaches a certainty of spiritual cycles/gods/etc. Saying this must be the case. It's not exactly creationism in it's full context, but a religious precursor. In other words it's philosophy, not a church.

I not only disagree that Christmas is still Christian, but that I believe it had no good reason for replacing the original pagan holiday in the first place. And that's also another reason why I don't have to celebrate Christmas as Jesus' birthday.

There was every reason to replace the pagan holiday. It was deemed false. Don't be confused with the asinine notion of Christians still setting up trees and such. It's contradictory, I know, but tolerated by God nonetheless. Jews no longer believe in the pagan counterparts. Since Christians spurred from Judaism, the same people by extension changed their holiday.
It's no secret that Christians have always done what they can to irritate others. It's probably a contributing factor as to why they did it in the first place lol.
But as I said before, it's a Christian holiday no matter how they corrupt their own ideas.
But it's not like anyone can keep you from celebrating it either. It's just become a normal part of society. Conformism, in other words.

 

[CassinoChips]

a gnostic simply asserts that his knowledge is 100% certain.

Gnosticism teaches a certainty of spiritual cycles/gods/etc. Saying this must be the case. It's not exactly creationism in it's full context, but a religious precursor. In other words it's philosophy, not a church.

At the risk of hitting a strawman, I don't think anyone is claiming that gnoticism is a dogmatic religion in and of itself. It's clearly not, as it's simply a generic term to describe anybody who believes anything in terms of spirituality with no doubt in their mind.

But as I said before, it's a Christian holiday no matter how they corrupt their own ideas.

By that logic, wouldn't it be a Pagan holiday regardless of how it was corrupted by Christians? I mean, if how the holiday is portrayed today cannot change its Christian core, certainly it would stand to reason that how the holiday is/was portrayed by Christians wouldn't change its Pagan core.

 

[der Astronom]

a gnostic simply asserts that his knowledge is 100% certain.

Gnosticism teaches a certainty of spiritual cycles/gods/etc. Saying this must be the case. It's not exactly creationism in it's full context, but a religious precursor. In other words it's philosophy, not a church.

Well clearly, that's not the definition of gnosticism I was referring to (and it's just dawned on me that a similar error occurs when speaking of agnosticism; there's the agnosticism that it's impossible to know anything or (for example) prove or disprove that god exists, and then there's the agnosticism that's applied to whether or not you know anything with any amount of certainty). So I am not referring to the entire set of gnosticism that involves divinely inspired knowledge related to religion, but on the knowledge that someone claims to have over something, as I explained previously. If you have any good reason for bringing up the other definition of gnosticism, please explain it. I suppose it's better put in context when you say gnostic atheism (or gnostic theist) rather than simply gnosticism by itself.

I not only disagree that Christmas is still Christian, but that I believe it had no good reason for replacing the original pagan holiday in the first place. And that's also another reason why I don't have to celebrate Christmas as Jesus' birthday.

There was every reason to replace the pagan holiday. It was deemed false. Don't be confused with the asinine notion of Christians still setting up trees and such. It's contradictory, I know, but tolerated by God nonetheless. Jews no longer believe in the pagan counterparts. Since Christians spurred from Judaism, the same people by extension changed their holiday.

And I just explained why this whole notion of calling pagan holidays false is absurd; if you're going to call a pagan holiday false, and replace it with something else that's not any less false, why do you believe there's a good reason for doing so? It's basically a pot calling the kettle black fallacy. If you believe there was a good reason for god's existence (which is basically what this all boils down to; if god doesn't exist, there's no good reason to replace a pagan holiday with another worship of a false god), then demonstrate it.

It's no secret that Christians have always done what they can to irritate others. It's probably a contributing factor as to why they did it in the first place lol.

And it's not just annoying; it's logically inconsistent and intolerant of other religions.
But anyways, do you support what they did? Do you support the fact that they disrespected another religion by replacing their holidays with their own, despite the fact that they had no basis whatsoever for claiming falsehoods in other people's religions without looking at the falsehoods in their own?

But as I said before, it's a Christian holiday no matter how they corrupt their own ideas.
But it's not like anyone can keep you from celebrating it either. It's just become a normal part of society. Conformism, in other words.

And I'm not celebrating Christmas as a Christian holiday. But if you're going to use that logic, and concede that putting up Christmas trees is simply tolerated (which would imply they're still being done as pagan traditions), there's no reason to think Christmas isn't still being celebrated as a pagan holiday--would it still be Christian if people celebrated it with gifts in mind instead of Jesus? Would you still call it Christian in character when it never was originally Christian at all to begin with? What part of a hallmark holiday would you consider to be Christian?