Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 104

Thread: Open-mindedness

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by Proteus View Post
    VuDo, what you were saying about spiritual ideas not needing superstition, well IMO spiritual ideas don't need to be unexplained or unexplainable either. I think things can be measured and understood a great deal more than you are submitting. For example, can you really not think of at least one common and well understood natural mechanism by which someone could find genuine healing in a psycho-spiritual ritual? Or think of something that Shamans are known to do that could make them more adaptable to changing circumstances?
    I certainly can think of many, but that wasn't the crux of my argument. I pointed out that we don't know everything about these phenomena yet, but many of us like to think we do, whichever side of the belief/non-belief coin we fall on. And sometimes there are some genuinely mysterious and odd things at work that mystify researchers -- does that mean they're unexplainable? No. Just that we haven't explained them yet.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,075
    Quote Originally Posted by VuDo View Post
    I certainly can think of many, but that wasn't the crux of my argument. I pointed out that we don't know everything about these phenomena yet, but many of us like to think we do, whichever side of the belief/non-belief coin we fall on. And sometimes there are some genuinely mysterious and odd things at work that mystify researchers -- does that mean they're unexplainable? No. Just that we haven't explained them yet.

    This. I don't know that it's logicalto jump to the Supernatural conclusion when there are many things that we simply don't understand, yet.

    At the same time...I don't think anecdotal evidence can be completely discounted.
    "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common:
    instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views,
    which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering."


  3. #33
    Garm's Avatar
     is offline <-- My own damn artwork for a change
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lost on the sea of UPGs
    Age
    54
    Posts
    2,273
    The concept of agnosticism has been concepicously absent from this disscusion

    By reducing the arguement to faith versus atheism it forces an artificial polairity on the framework when really it should have agnosticism has a third option for the sake of completeness

    When you have a triad of faith, agnosticism and atheism it is the second that corresponds most closely to perceived virtue of open mindedness

    Defining the terms of the debate without it allows atheists to appropiate it's viewpoints for themselves

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    256
    Good point Garm.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Age
    31
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Njorun Alma View Post
    1. I did not say there are no close-minded skeptics. I said I disagreed with the comment that they are so against saying "I don't know". Anecdotal as it may be, that is my experience, which is why I did not use absolutist terms. Not all skeptics I know are open-minded all of the time, but not once have I heard them avoid the term "We don't know". Unless you call the phrase "We don't know, yet" avoidance.
    You were disagreeing with non-absolute judgements based on anecdotes and used at least one absolute yourself. *shrug*

    2. Okay. You know what? The word fundamentalism means a strict adherence to the fundamental principles of a set of beliefs. Yes or no? Do you go by another definition? I think you have to.

    Atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief in a deity, that is all. There are antitheists and strong atheists making different claims, but that doesn't matter. They no longer subscribe to the one definition we have of the word atheist if they do.
    I think the rest of your line of reasoning can be set aside since this right here is the key issue. YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION of atheism may not include anything other than a casual lack of belief in a deity. But that's FAR from a widely agreed upon definition. If you don't like the fact that strong atheists are a subset of atheists, that's fine. But that doesn't make your preference reality. Language works on broad agreements between individuals upon what words mean and how they're used - getting mad because people disagree with your quite rare usage restrictions is silly and, frankly, a bit egotistical.
    JFGI

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Age
    30
    Posts
    6,476
    The reason agnosticism isn't in between theism and atheism in this discussion is because they don't deal with the same thing. Theism means belief, atheism means lack of belief, agnosticism deals with not knowing.

    You can't just simply say "I don't know" and leave it at that, unless you don't care, in which case the position is irrelevant to this conversation.
    Previously known as Njorun Alma


    "A mind of the calibre of mine cannot derive its nutriment from cows." - George Bernard Shaw


  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiberias View Post
    I think the rest of your line of reasoning can be set aside since this right here is the key issue. YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION of atheism may not include anything other than a casual lack of belief in a deity. But that's FAR from a widely agreed upon definition. If you don't like the fact that strong atheists are a subset of atheists, that's fine. But that doesn't make your preference reality. Language works on broad agreements between individuals upon what words mean and how they're used - getting mad because people disagree with your quite rare usage restrictions is silly and, frankly, a bit egotistical.
    Hmm, you're trying to split hairs on a bald man.

    All atheists lack a belief in deity. That is most certainly the common definition. It isn't a personal definition. That's what atheism means.

    It seems rather than address Njorun Alma's argument about fundamentalism, which was a good one, you tried to create a diversion to negate it, then added a petty insult at the end which was obviously intended to be infuriating.

    You stay classy, Tiberias! :hehehehe:

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Age
    30
    Posts
    6,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiberias View Post
    You were disagreeing with non-absolute judgements based on anecdotes and used at least one absolute yourself. *shrug*



    I think the rest of your line of reasoning can be set aside since this right here is the key issue. YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION of atheism may not include anything other than a casual lack of belief in a deity. But that's FAR from a widely agreed upon definition. If you don't like the fact that strong atheists are a subset of atheists, that's fine. But that doesn't make your preference reality. Language works on broad agreements between individuals upon what words mean and how they're used - getting mad because people disagree with your quite rare usage restrictions is silly and, frankly, a bit egotistical.
    What absolute one?

    You're using your personal definition, aren't you?
    What is the widely agreed upon definition? The one that the people who have chosen the label agree upon? The one that you and your friends have agreed upon?
    I'm not mad, I'm laughing my ass off. My husband is fuming, but I'm laughing my cute little butt off at the moment.
    You're saying that the widely agreed upon definition is the most valid? In what country? In what culture? Or by the dictionary definition?
    Then we'd have to bow to the widely accepted opinion that Pagan means new age cook.
    That they come from atheism, sure, they do. And these people are still atheists, because they don't believe in deities. But the claim of god does NOT exist is not an atheist one. It's an atitheistic or strong atheism one. Atheists, as such, cannot be fundamentalists.
    I'd even argue that not even strong atheists can be fundamentalists because I do think there have to be more than an adherence to ONE point for someone to be a fundamentalist. But that is my personal opinion. I'd also say that one can't be a fundamentalist theist, really. Because it's just one standpoint. "There is a god" most other things vary widely.

    The thing here is that you cannot be a fundamentalist atheist because atheism does not, according to atheists, make a positive claim. You can be an atheist and make a positive claim, but atheism itself doesn't. Which means that making a positive claim would not make you a fundamental atheist because the position of "there IS no God" is not an atheistic claim.
    Atheism = lack of belief in god
    if an atheist say, yeah, not only do I not believe in god, I know there is no god.
    The disbelief of a god is an atheistic point.
    The knowing there is no god is not an atheistic point and thus the claim is not fundamentally atheistic.

    Do you understand where I am going with this?

    A fundamentalist Christian is someone who rigorously adhere to the fundamental points in the bible, to the teachings of Christ.
    A fundamentalist Muslim is someone who rigorously adhere to the fundamental points in the Koran, to the teachings of Mohammad.

    How can you be an atheistic fundamentalist if the point that you rigorously adhere to is not a fundamental point of atheism?
    That is my question, and you've yet to answer it.
    Instead you keep telling me the definition of atheism I use is my personal one and invalid, but you're not offering up what you mean when you say "fundamentalist atheist". What, according to you, the widely spread consensus is about the definition of atheist and fundamentalism?

    What is an atheist? And does people who don't understand atheism get to dictate what the definition is? The widely spread consensus within Christianity is that we hate god. Do we hate god? No.
    The widely spread consensus within Christianity is that Pagans are devil worshipers. Are Pagans devil worshipers? No.

    Where is the definition of atheism to mean a lack of belief in god a quite rare one?
    Previously known as Njorun Alma


    "A mind of the calibre of mine cannot derive its nutriment from cows." - George Bernard Shaw


  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by Njorun Alma View Post
    The reason agnosticism isn't in between theism and atheism in this discussion is because they don't deal with the same thing. Theism means belief, atheism means lack of belief, agnosticism deals with not knowing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Njorun Alma View Post

    You can't just simply say "I don't know" and leave it at that, unless you don't care, in which case the position is irrelevant to this conversation.
    A person can say 'I don't know', without meaning 'I don't care'. Some people are agnostic because they understand that their own experiences do not equate to the experiences of others. While anecdotal evidence makes for poor science, these personal stories shape people's relationships with themselves and the world around them.

    In this particular context agnosticism is relevant because the post and video were about the concepts of open-mindedness and critical thinking, not belief vs. non-belief. Critical thinking forces us to recognize that not everything is an either/or proposition. We donít live in a binary world. Open-mindedness makes us aware that science is not the only method people use to learn about the world and their place in it. What we personally gain from those learning experiences, in turn, influences our perception about which types of learning are most relevant to us.

    Some things are simply more complex and nuanced, and the debate between theism and atheism can sometimes be one of those complex and nuanced subjects.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Njorun Alma View Post
    The reason agnosticism isn't in between theism and atheism in this discussion is because they don't deal with the same thing. Theism means belief, atheism means lack of belief, agnosticism deals with not knowing.
    a agnostic could.

    You can't just simply say "I don't know" and leave it at that, unless you don't care, in which case the position is irrelevant to this conversation.
    IMO no. but i would love to hear why.

    Quote Originally Posted by Njorun Alma View Post
    What absolute one?

    You're using your personal definition, aren't you?
    What is the widely agreed upon definition? The one that the people who have chosen the label agree upon? The one that you and your friends have agreed upon?
    I'm not mad, I'm laughing my ass off. My husband is fuming, but I'm laughing my cute little butt off at the moment.
    good you are laughing. Sorry about your husband. me and him had no clashes.

    You're saying that the widely agreed upon definition is the most valid? In what country? In what culture? Or by the dictionary definition?
    Then we'd have to bow to the widely accepted opinion that Pagan means new age cook.
    That they come from atheism, sure, they do. And these people are still atheists, because they don't believe in deities. But the claim of god does NOT exist is not an atheist one. It's an atitheistic or strong atheism one. Atheists, as such, cannot be fundamentalists.
    I'd even argue that not even strong atheists can be fundamentalists because I do think there have to be more than an adherence to ONE point for someone to be a fundamentalist. But that is my personal opinion. I'd also say that one can't be a fundamentalist theist, really. Because it's just one standpoint. "There is a god" most other things vary widely.

    The thing here is that you cannot be a fundamentalist atheist because atheism does not, according to atheists, make a positive claim. You can be an atheist and make a positive claim, but atheism itself doesn't. Which means that making a positive claim would not make you a fundamental atheist because the position of "there IS no God" is not an atheistic claim.
    Atheism = lack of belief in god
    if an atheist say, yeah, not only do I not believe in god, I know there is no god.
    The disbelief of a god is an atheistic point.
    The knowing there is no god is not an atheistic point and thus the claim is not fundamentally atheistic.

    Do you understand where I am going with this?

    A fundamentalist Christian is someone who rigorously adhere to the fundamental points in the bible, to the teachings of Christ.
    A fundamentalist Muslim is someone who rigorously adhere to the fundamental points in the Koran, to the teachings of Mohammad.

    How can you be an atheistic fundamentalist if the point that you rigorously adhere to is not a fundamental point of atheism?
    That is my question, and you've yet to answer it.
    Instead you keep telling me the definition of atheism I use is my personal one and invalid, but you're not offering up what you mean when you say "fundamentalist atheist". What, according to you, the widely spread consensus is about the definition of atheist and fundamentalism?

    What is an atheist? And does people who don't understand atheism get to dictate what the definition is? The widely spread consensus within Christianity is that we hate god. Do we hate god? No.
    The widely spread consensus within Christianity is that Pagans are devil worshipers. Are Pagans devil worshipers? No.

    Where is the definition of atheism to mean a lack of belief in god a quite rare one?
    I think people equate "fundamental atheism" with i believe the terms Antitheists and Materialists. And from what limited knowledge of these groups, they would be classified as atheists.
    Now most people that have problems with Christians(including other Christians like Thomist philosophers and Christian witchcraft) are usually with the Christian fundamentalists which preach hate for those who do not believe in their version of beliefs. And they will try either anything to almost anything to get you to convert to their side. I think this is where the confusion lies. Once these types are identified more clearly (and sometimes repeatedly ) to the public then you should hear(or read) less people calling someone or labeling something "fundamental atheist".
    MYSTIC WICKS Needs your help!Please donate or subscribe!



    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •