OpinionIt is impossible to not have a dogma.
      – Bensci, 2008-09-08 at 23:42:36   (147 comments)

On 2008-09-09 at 00:19:25, Bensci wrote...
Plainly put, dogma means truth. In other words, it is the belief set that an religion/ideology/system is based on and from which all other beliefs are drawn.
On 2008-09-09 at 00:21:48, RudystillRules wrote...
Disagree. Skepticism ftw.
On 2008-09-09 at 00:27:03, Bensci wrote...
@RudystillRules: I would have to disagree. The skeptics dogma is this: "The smartest way to go through life is to be skeptical of everything." I actually know someone who when a skeptic came up to him and criticized him for being religion, he replied, so, you're saying I should be skeptical of everything. Why then should I believe you?
On 2008-09-09 at 00:29:01, Korinthian wrote...
@Bensci: He shouldn't believe him, but listen to his arguments and decide what's right. Hopefully he will use rationality and logic in that decision.
On 2008-09-09 at 00:30:29, RudystillRules wrote...
@Bensci: You're really misunderstanding the meaning of "dogma" here. "Dogma" is too unreliable to hold absolute, unquestioning faith in.
On 2008-09-09 at 00:31:03, RudystillRules wrote...
No skeptic holds absolute faith in anything.
On 2008-09-09 at 00:33:18, Bensci wrote...
@RudystillRules: except their skepticism
On 2008-09-09 at 00:40:22, Korinthian wrote...
@Bensci: So you wouldn't describe yourself as a skeptic? Isn't it natural to question things?
On 2008-09-09 at 00:42:13, Bensci wrote...
@Korinthian: No, I never said that. In fact, I am slightly skeptic at heart. In fact, I try not to believe things just because people tell me to.
On 2008-09-09 at 00:44:43, Korinthian wrote...
@Bensci: But are you even skeptic against your own religion?
On 2008-09-09 at 00:45:27, Bensci wrote...
@Korinthian: no
On 2008-09-09 at 00:45:54, Bensci wrote...
But are you even skeptic about your atheism?
On 2008-09-09 at 00:48:14, Korinthian wrote...
@Bensci: Well, it is hard to be skeptic towards something that doesn't really exist, but is a lack of something else. That would be like me asking you whether you are skeptic about your non-buddhism. But rest assured that I have spent lots of time thinking about religion. Why aren't you skeptic about your religion?
On 2008-09-09 at 00:48:46, RudystillRules wrote...
@Bensci: Skepticism is not a set of beliefs or Dogma. You have the alternative dogmatism where you can blindly accept things on faith and assert them dogmatically. Skepticism = Willing to think critically about any subject.
On 2008-09-09 at 00:49:28, RudystillRules wrote...
At the risk of sounding cliche, it's really more of an attitude.
On 2008-09-09 at 00:55:58, Bensci wrote...
@Korinthian: I would say that I am skeptical about it, but not against it. I do look into topics analytically sometimes, and by doing so, reaffirm my position or change it slightly to match my findings.
On 2008-09-09 at 00:56:37, RudystillRules wrote...
http://skepdic.com/faq.html. Good read Ben.
On 2008-09-09 at 01:01:03, Korinthian wrote...
@Bensci: So basically you are skeptic within the parameters of your religion, which means that you can never go beyond them on that subjects.
On 2008-09-09 at 01:21:55, Mudjun wrote...
It is extremely hard to resist certain instincts and conditioning.. but after seeing Buddhists sit quietly on fire, I don't think it's impossible.
On 2008-09-09 at 01:32:19, Korinthian wrote...
@Mudjun: Sounds kind of dangerous. Why would they do that?
On 2008-09-09 at 01:35:27, Mudjun wrote...
@Korinthian: In protest, to avoid defilement by an enemy, to be released from saṃsāra, etc.
On 2008-09-09 at 01:37:39, Korinthian wrote...
@Mudjun: Just to make things clear, they were hurt or dead once the whole thing was over, right?
On 2008-09-09 at 01:39:38, Mudjun wrote...
@Korinthian: If they weren't dead they'd probably be a bit pissed off.
On 2008-09-09 at 01:42:06, Korinthian wrote...
@Mudjun: And no kind of enemy would defile a blistered ass.
On 2008-09-09 at 01:44:18, Mudjun wrote...
For them, the world, their body, is all impermanent. "Attachment" keeps one in the cycle of rebirth.. so destroying that which might feed the cycle or stopping it from decaying would be in line with that point of view. It's no guarantee kinda like those who think belief alone isn't an automatic trip to heaven. One more act of faith, but this one is to achieve the ultimate blowout.
On 2008-09-09 at 01:46:26, Mudjun wrote...
That is actually what "nirvana" means.
On 2008-09-09 at 01:48:49, Korinthian wrote...
@Mudjun: Oh yeah, they're the guys with the wheel and that eight-fold road, right? I think it is cool that they spend so much time trying to control their body, because who else really has time to do that?
On 2008-09-09 at 01:49:58, Mudjun wrote...
@Korinthian: Only the devout.
On 2008-09-09 at 02:09:03, Patofeo wrote...
I found this site quite useful http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
On 2008-09-09 at 02:16:32, Bensci wrote...
@Korinthian: yes, basically.
On 2008-09-09 at 02:21:36, Bensci wrote...
@Patofeo: the problem with that website is that science has nothing to do with God.
On 2008-09-09 at 02:24:50, Bensci wrote...
You know something is dogma when you question why that is the way it is, and the only answer you can come up with is, "that's just the way it is."
On 2008-09-09 at 02:25:14, BorgClown wrote...
Dogma: 1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church. 2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine. 3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" Abraham Lincoln.
On 2008-09-09 at 02:25:30, Patofeo wrote...
@Bensci: its not really a problem with the website or science
On 2008-09-09 at 02:27:55, BorgClown wrote...
According to the third definition, we certainly do. The uncertainty comes with the second. I think my dogma is science, even when certain things are out of the reach of science. What I believe as true is that Science is the best method so far to know our Universe, if Science falls short, everything else will fall shorter.
On 2008-09-09 at 02:31:03, Korinthian wrote...
@Bensci: <tt>"You know something is dogma when you question why that is the way it is, and the only answer you can come up with is, "that's just the way it is." And you think that is a good answer? To me that sounds like something that isn't intellectually honest.
On 2008-09-09 at 02:48:14, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: I understand Ben's position, because I have a diametrical but similar one. Pure science would make an agnostic of me whenever a unfalsifiable proposal (like God) came my way,but I believe, without proof, that unfalsifiable proposals are false by definition. Then I'm an atheist instead of an agnostic.
On 2008-09-09 at 02:55:55, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: I'm not sure what you're getting at.
On 2008-09-09 at 02:58:56, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: Short version: Atheism involves faith, otherwise it should be agnosticism. We can't prove either way.
On 2008-09-09 at 02:59:37, Patofeo wrote...
@Korinthian: I suspect he means that if I claim that red dragons fly across the sky at night but only i can see them, you can call bullshit on me rather than taking an agnostic stand
On 2008-09-09 at 03:01:43, BorgClown wrote...
@Patofeo: Precisely. the scientific method is strict in that theories have to be put on hold when the evidence is not enough. Unfalsifiable theories would be put on hold forever.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:03:24, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: I'm an agnostic like everyone when it comes to that we can't know anything to a 100% degree. I am an atheist because I lack a belief in religious stuff.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:06:15, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: But you really don't know that God doesn't exist, don't you? You're like me, we don't want to wait forever, then we take our "gods do not exist" stand based on assumptions. That means not based on hard facts. That means faith.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:06:49, Patofeo wrote...
@Korinthian: religion aside, atheism pertains to the god question. As an example, one could conceivably be an areligious theist
On 2008-09-09 at 03:07:05, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: Maybe I misread you. Do you believe that gods aren't real?
On 2008-09-09 at 03:09:31, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: I know it with the same certainty that I know Santa doesn't exist. It's not 100% but it's damn close.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:09:44, Patofeo wrote...
@BorgClown: I can read you like an open book (RE:#41). Does that scare the clownfacce? Am I turning the tides on coulrophobia?
On 2008-09-09 at 03:10:33, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: Yeah, I lack belief in any god.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:12:51, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: If I didn't know hat you're a mad scientist, I'd be kinda uneasy.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:13:50, BorgClown wrote...
@BorgClown: That was to Pato, dammit.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:14:19, BorgClown wrote...
Fuck, that was to Korinthian!
On 2008-09-09 at 03:16:28, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: You lost me. What the heck are you talking about?
On 2008-09-09 at 03:17:53, Patofeo wrote...
@BorgClown: no worries about me. Somebody else's doomsday device beat me to the punch.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:20:28, BorgClown wrote...
Please disregard my previous three comments.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:22:11, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: My point is, you are not a theist, but you're not an atheist. An atheist denies the existence of gods, and you're not 100% sure. You, my friend, are an agnostic.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:22:27, BorgClown wrote...
@Patofeo: One of these days...
On 2008-09-09 at 03:23:56, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: Nope, atheist, for the reasons I just gave.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:27:51, Nevermore wrote...
@Korinthian: "I know it with the same certainty that I know Santa doesn't exist. It's not 100% but it's damn close" really? Because I am 100% certain Santa does not exist.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:28:42, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: Dictionary time: atheist Someone who denies the existence of god. agnostic A) One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. B) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:29:30, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: Disregarding the awful indentation of my last comment, where do you think you fit, based on your responses to this topic?
On 2008-09-09 at 03:30:22, Nevermore wrote...
I think he's an agnostic atheist.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:32:19, BorgClown wrote...
@Nevermore: What is the difference between an agnostic and an agnostic atheist?
On 2008-09-09 at 03:32:58, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: Are you agnostic about whether or not the moon is made of cheese?
On 2008-09-09 at 03:33:29, Korinthian wrote...
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, and if you want to call that "denying" that's fine by me.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:34:52, Nevermore wrote...
@BorgClown: An atheist knows there is not god. An agnostic atheist does not believe there is a god but is isn't going to say it with absolute certainty. Like a weak atheist, I suppose.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:38:14, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: That is falsifiable. I deny that the moon is made of cheese, and can arrange a series of tests to confirm it. Spectrography comes to mind. I deny the moon is made of cheese, bases of proof, or the theoretical possibility of them.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:39:53, BorgClown wrote...
@Nevermore: Well, we atheists believe there are no gods, but we have no way of knowing. An agnostic atheist sounds like your regular agnostic, someone who can't prove nor deny, and choses to delay his posture.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:40:30, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: Yeah, but you can't be 100% sure of that.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:41:43, Patofeo wrote...
@Korinthian: why?? (RE:#68)
On 2008-09-09 at 03:42:18, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: About the Moon?
On 2008-09-09 at 03:43:54, Korinthian wrote...
You can't be 100% sure of anything, there is always the possibility of you being bonkers, or instruments are faulty, or the inside of the moon being cheese.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:45:07, Patofeo wrote...
@Korinthian: I can't be 100% sure of the true composition of the moon, but I darn well know 100% that it isn't made of cheese
On 2008-09-09 at 03:45:53, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: Maybe it wasn't the best example having a NASA junkie here.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:46:22, Korinthian wrote...
@Patofeo: How? Have you conducted any experiments, or are you simply relying on authority on that issue?
On 2008-09-09 at 03:46:28, Patofeo wrote...
on the other hand.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CzFSIjU8sc
On 2008-09-09 at 03:47:31, BorgClown wrote...
Atoms are the most common example. Most of us will never see them, we can't touch them, but Science tell us that they're everywhere, that we're made of them.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:48:22, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: Santa Claus is another. Are you 100% sure he doesn't exist?
On 2008-09-09 at 03:51:04, Patofeo wrote...
@Korinthian: there is plenty of data collected remotely that refutes the fact that the moon is made of cheese. One can do this with a simple spectroscope. The albedo of the moon does not match that of cheese.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:51:05, BorgClown wrote...
@Patofeo: "This video is no longer available" =<
On 2008-09-09 at 03:51:29, Patofeo wrote...
@BorgClown: i have no prob. Can you copy/paste?
On 2008-09-09 at 03:53:12, Korinthian wrote...
@Patofeo: Yeah sure, and you have accepted all that on authority. Which means you are not 100% sure. Thanks, and I'll be signing authographs in the foyer.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:53:19, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: In theory he's implausible, and in practice the North Pole and cities he visits has enough surveillance to deny his activities. And all our parents confessed sooner or later it was them.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:53:36, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: When it says that, reloading the page usually solves the problem.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:53:58, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: Ah, but he is unfalsifiable.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:54:48, Patofeo wrote...
@Korinthian: I know what you are getting at and I understand your posture. A part of me agrees with you, but another part is too pragmatic
On 2008-09-09 at 03:55:29, BorgClown wrote...
I'm seeing it now, thanks. Bandwidth spike on my end.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:57:43, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: Accepting science is not accepting authority. You can find all the procedures exhaustively and clearly documented, If you want, you have all the instructions to reinvent the wheel and do it all yourself.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:59:12, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: But my point is that you cannot be 100% sure of everything, not whether or not science is true or that you should go to the moon and taste it just to be sure of whether it's made of cheese or not.
On 2008-09-09 at 03:59:29, Patofeo wrote...
@Korinthian: For there to be chance, there needs to be reasonable expectation. There is no chance whatsoever that the moon is made of cheese. I am 100% sure, 0% doubt
On 2008-09-09 at 03:59:48, Korinthian wrote...
And correct my if I'm wrong, Borg, but you think Santa is less likely to exist than the christian god?
On 2008-09-09 at 04:00:27, Korinthian wrote...
@Patofeo: Saying it doesn't make it so, you know.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:01:12, Patofeo wrote...
@Korinthian: completely agree on your last statement
On 2008-09-09 at 04:02:13, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: You're stretching the "reasonable doubt" concept. Following your argumentation, I can kick you in the nuts while facing you, and say that it wasn't me, and you'll never be sure.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:02:38, BorgClown wrote...
Hell, maybe I didn't kick you after all.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:03:37, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: Now you're getting it. You don't call yourself agnostic about things you say you "know". Answer about Santa, plx!
On 2008-09-09 at 04:05:28, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: Santa Claus doesn't exists, I'm sure of it. Call me a Santa atheist. If you think it could possibly exist, you're Santa agnostic.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:06:45, Patofeo wrote...
@Korinthian: To not be 100% sure about the exact composition of the moon is a far stretch from saying that it could be made of anything
On 2008-09-09 at 04:07:03, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: I'm a God atheist in the same way you're a Santa atheist.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:07:52, Korinthian wrote...
@Patofeo: Not "anything"! Cheese! It is a hypothesis that has been around since the childhood of dairy products. You think I'd just make shit up?
On 2008-09-09 at 04:09:05, Patofeo wrote...
@Korinthian: forgive my wild imagination :P
On 2008-09-09 at 04:11:32, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: There are no degrees of atheism. The moment you admit the possibility of gods (or Santas) you become an agnostic. Most of the atheists nowadays are really agnostics. And I see nothing wrong with that.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:17:30, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: You can be both agnostic and atheist, As I have tried to explain for the last 34789 minutes. I don't claim to know anything for certain, but I lack a belief in any god, which makes me an atheist. I know there is no god because I know there is no Santa, no Harry Potter and no Superman. I can tell reality from fiction, and gods fall into the latter category. Just because it is written down doesn't make it more true. Why hesitate to say "god isn't real" when I'm "only" 99.9999999999% sure? I don't go around adding the caveat "I'm almost totally sure about that thing I just said, because I haven't personally tested it, or it is not falsifiable". There are lots of stuff written on this issue on the Internet if you want to know more about it, but let me assure you that I am in fact an atheist.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:19:49, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: And it's annoying when people assume I don't know what one of the few labels I brand myself with means. But not as annoying as when christians tell me I don't exist.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:20:29, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: I think you're a non-religious agnostic. As you've said several times, you "lack a belief in any god", and also you're 0.0000000001% sure he exists.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:22:09, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: I'm not questioning your knowledge of the terms, what I'm questioning is how you can proclaim yourself an atheist if you clearly doubt. Atheism is a question of faith, much as theism is.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:22:18, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: Like I said, look it up on the Internet. I have really tried explaining it.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:23:25, Korinthian wrote...
I don't think I can say it in any other way, I really thought the Santa-atheist part would drive it home.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:24:29, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: <tt>I'm not questioning your knowledge of the terms You're saying I don't know what an "atheist" is, so yeah, that is precisely what you are doing.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:25:23, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: How about you give a link. I already pasted hre the definitions of FreeDictionary. Atheists deny the existence of God. Agnostics admit the possibility.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:27:36, Korinthian wrote...
@BorgClown: I'd really like to know why you think Santa is less likely to exist than the christian god.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:28:08, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: Also, I'm questioning your urge to call yourself an atheist when all you've said so long is that you can't completely deny anything. I recognize it's difficult to deny that omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent beings that choose to remain out of grasp exists. But i do it anyway
On 2008-09-09 at 04:28:52, BorgClown wrote...
@BorgClown: I say that God doesn't exist. That makes it 0% probable to exist. Santa is not gonna fare lower than that.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:29:11, Korinthian wrote...
A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he though God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's. Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence. The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on th
On 2008-09-09 at 04:29:17, Patofeo wrote...
@Korinthian: http://www.shanemcdonald.com/laughs/l-santa_exist.html
On 2008-09-09 at 04:29:29, Korinthian wrote...
The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:31:41, Korinthian wrote...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
On 2008-09-09 at 04:33:47, Nevermore wrote...
@Korinthian: I was 10 seconds from posting that link.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:34:22, Korinthian wrote...
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-an-atheist-faq.htm
On 2008-09-09 at 04:34:47, Korinthian wrote...
@Nevermore: I'm spent, Borg is sucking my will to live right out of me.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:35:18, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: Give me time to read the article. I can continue to drain you puny lifeforce tomorrow.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:36:29, Patofeo wrote...
@BorgClown: we can't stop now! Kor is about to self-combust - keep pushing his buttons! ;)
On 2008-09-09 at 04:38:32, Korinthian wrote...
@Nevermore: I prefer not to post links to finish my arguments for me, I dislike when people do it to me. Many christians I have argued with end a conversation like this: if you read *this* book you will understand. Like I'm going to go read a book just to see that I'm still right.
On 2008-09-09 at 04:39:42, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: I'm not taking it as a conclusion dude, just a truce.
On 2008-09-09 at 05:34:11, RudystillRules wrote...
IMO, discussionator isn't feeling completely conducive to long debates. The you know which site's page system was a good idea.
On 2008-09-09 at 05:36:44, BorgClown wrote...
@RudystillRules: Why Rudy? You can sort the comments by order of appearance (big blue arrow at the right) and read them, then invert the order to see the newest first and participate.
On 2008-09-09 at 05:37:45, BorgClown wrote...
@RudystillRules: don't press the "Mark all as read" link until you've finished though.
On 2008-09-09 at 05:41:09, RudystillRules wrote...
I just used the arrow system which is cool, but long pages of arguments like the regular atheism vs religion debates at you know what become too much scrolling.
On 2008-09-09 at 05:42:47, RudystillRules wrote...
Plus I have to sorta adjust the scrolling at just the right position to read some complete arguments rendering my wheel useless. Maybe I'm just lazy.
On 2008-09-09 at 05:44:35, BorgClown wrote...
@RudystillRules: Even if DNr is smart enough to only show you the comments you haven't read yet, I agree. Maybe if it loaded more comments per scroll it would be nicer. I find dragging the scroll bar better, but so far I haven't read threads as long as this one. A "Discussionator" topic might be in order.
On 2008-09-09 at 05:47:55, RudystillRules wrote...
Another issue I'm noticing itt because I'm reading it thoroughly is too big font.
On 2008-09-09 at 05:49:59, RudystillRules wrote...
Also why does Lee not appear in topics where I figure his comments would be interesting.
On 2008-09-09 at 08:03:12, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@RudystillRules: Usually because I'm in bed at the time. Look at my user page to see my local time. I've upped the number of comments loaded at a time by 50%.
On 2008-09-09 at 15:54:29, BorgClown wrote...
@Korinthian: After reading a handful of WP articles, I see where we disagreed. Wikipedia treats atheism/theism as a question of belief (faith), and agnosticism as a question of knowledge (verifiability). The definition of agnostic as non-committed is replaced by degrees of atheism/theism. So in this light you can have agnostic atheists, agnostic strong atheists, agnostic apatheists, agnostic theists, etc. And there's overlapping and even contradictions (because of the large number of references) between the definitions. Way to complicate a choice, I'm not reading all of the Theological thought series to find a new label that suits me. So I'll resume it in this: Atheism/theism requires faith, and agnosticism requires knowledge. If you have faith in something, knowledge is irrelevant, so if you're really an atheist/theist, you don't need the agnostic adjective. If you need it, you're an agnostic with tendencies to atheism/theism, not the other way around.
On 2008-09-09 at 15:57:19, BorgClown wrote...
Although I might say that I found the Apatheistic viewpoint interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
On 2008-09-09 at 17:24:49, Scarletxstarlet wrote...
Dogma prevents you from questioning, and there is nothing that I am unwilling to question, other than logic and reason. Logic and reason are inherently true and to believe otherwise is to invite insanity.
On 2008-09-09 at 19:11:46, Bensci wrote...
@Scarletxstarlet: see then your dogma is "logic and reason are inherently true."
On 2008-09-10 at 03:03:53, Beeba wrote...
@Bensci: that is only dogma in the sense that 3 friends hanging out and playing video games are a "cult". yes it's technically true in the vaguest, broadest sense of the least used definition of the word, but isn't that a bit misleading?
On 2008-09-10 at 03:06:53, Korinthian wrote...
Logic isn't a dogma, it is just a name for something that we all do, some more than others. Logic is reasoning of the type: "If my wife's in the kitchen, she can't be outside fixing the car".
On 2008-09-10 at 03:12:50, Nevermore wrote...
@Korinthian: unless the kitchen is outside...
On 2008-09-10 at 03:16:04, Korinthian wrote...
@Nevermore: Logic fails me again!
On 2008-09-10 at 03:16:04, Beeba wrote...
@Korinthian: i think you've got logic confused with misogyny. =P
On 2008-09-10 at 03:17:40, Korinthian wrote...
@Beeba: What a mean thing to say! I'm sure Nevermore would have noticed if that were the case.
On 2008-09-10 at 03:19:11, Nevermore wrote...
@Korinthian: I did notice :p
On 2008-09-10 at 03:20:36, Korinthian wrote...
@Nevermore: But you were afraid to speak up in the presence of men? Good woman!
On 2008-09-10 at 03:21:55, Nevermore wrote...
@Korinthian: thank you, master.
On 2008-09-10 at 16:57:40, Matzevolt wrote...
I disagreed, because I understood it on a personal level. I don't think it is impossible for ME to be free of dogma. The SOCIETY as a whole is of course another story. There are a lot of things people will get pushed in their head and not question and I think there will always be dogmas on that scale.
On 2008-09-11 at 02:17:43, Scarletxstarlet wrote...
@ben- The whole point of my comment is that even if logic qualifies as a dogma, it's a necessary one in order to live a sane life.