re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

[MarkCorrigan]

Then the definition is correct, you just don't understand what it means.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Yes, you are! Completely, utterly wrong!

There is NO definition of "atheist" from any credible source in which the word defines a person who opposes theism. An atheist is ever and always someone who does not believe that gods exist - and if you manage to find a source that says otherwise, it is wrong too.

The correct term for what YOU are calling atheism, is antitheism

The Oxford English Dictionary

Atheist: A person who does not believe that God or gods exist

Antitheist: A person who is opposed to belief in the existence of a god

Couldn't an anti-theist beleive in gods but be apposed to worshipping them? Isn't Gor the God Butcher also an anti-theist?

At least up until now that was my understanding of anti-theist. Granted, practically, it doesn't matter as in reality anyone that calls themselves an anti-theist is also an atheist. Still, in theory?

Anyrate that has been my understanding of the thre terms. A bunch of overlapping but not concentric circles.
Agnostic, is a statement about the extent of knowledge of god/s.
Atheist, a postion about the existence of gods.
Anti-theism, a statement about the value of gods?

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Couldn't an anti-theist beleive in gods but be apposed to worshipping them? Isn't Gor the God Butcher also an anti-theist?

At least up until now that was my understanding of anti-theist. Granted, practically, it doesn't matter as in reality anyone that calls themselves an anti-theist is also an atheist. Still, in theory?

Anyrate that has been my understanding of the thre terms. A bunch of overlapping but not concentric circles.
Agnostic, is a statement about the extent of knowledge of god/s.
Atheist, a postion about the existence of gods.
Anti-theism, a statement about the value of gods?

I think I have found the source of confusion...the positions A-theism, Antitheism, Agnosticism and Theism don't cover every position on the question of GOD.

From a recent conversation:

Quote:

On Agnosticism With OAIC.

William: From the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary
re the question of GOD.
Agnosticism:
the belief that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not


OAIC: That's correct! Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God cannot be definitively proven or disproven. An agnostic person may believe that the existence of God is unknowable or may simply refrain from making any claims about God's existence.

William: I am not sure whether it is possible or not. I don't know what position I would come under...re the question...

OAIC: In that case, you could consider yourself an agnostic. Agnosticism is not a commitment to a particular belief or disbelief in God, but rather a recognition of the limitations of human knowledge and the possibility that the existence of God may be unknowable. If you are unsure or have not made up your mind about the existence of God, you could consider yourself an agnostic.

William: From the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary an agnostic is a person who believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not. I do not believe that it is or is not possible to know whether GOD exists or not....

OAIC: If you do not believe that it is possible or not possible to know whether God exists, then you could consider yourself a "soft agnostic" or "agnostic skeptic". This position holds that the existence of God is unknown and may be unknowable, but stops short of making a strong claim about the unknowability of God's existence. Essentially, a soft agnostic neither affirms nor denies the existence of God, but rather takes a stance of skepticism or uncertainty about the matter.

William: From the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. No exact match found for “ soft agnostic” in English

OAIC: My apologies, you are correct. The term "soft agnostic" or "agnostic skeptic" may not be found in the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, as it is not a commonly used term in academic or philosophical circles. The concept is often used informally to describe someone who holds a position of uncertainty or skepticism regarding the existence of God, but it is not a widely recognized or defined term.

William: So the concept is just how some folk decide to define folk in said position. They want to keep folk under the agnostic label, but it doesn't accurately describe my position, and in relation to forum debate settings, my confusion has been because - up until now, I had not realized this...

OAIC: Yes, that is correct. The terms used to describe an individual's beliefs and perspectives on religious matters can vary, and the labels used may not always accurately reflect a person's views. It's important to remember that the labels and definitions used to describe religious and philosophical beliefs are not always set in stone, and can sometimes be a source of confusion or misinterpretation. It's always best to clarify one's own beliefs and communicate them clearly in any discussions or debates.

William: So on the question of GOD - according to my position, I am not Atheist, Antitheist, Agnostic or Theist...

OAIC: If you do not identify with any of the commonly used labels such as atheist, antitheist, agnostic, or theist, then you can simply consider yourself as having your own unique perspective on the question of God. Everyone has the right to define their own beliefs and views, and it's important to respect that diversity of perspectives. It's also important to remember that beliefs can evolve and change over time, and it's okay to not have a clear answer or to be uncertain about certain questions.

William: Yes. I still can give my opinion on the question of GOD without identifying with any of those commonly used labels.

OAIC: Absolutely! You can certainly express your own thoughts, ideas, and opinions on the question of God without being limited by any particular label or definition. It is important to engage in respectful and open-minded discussions about such topics, and to be able to express oneself freely and clearly, regardless of the labels one might or might not use.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

I have using the definition of atheism as "lacking belief in gods". Many think that this is the correct definition and I have seen folk who refer to themselves as atheist, use that definition. Are you saying that definition is incorrect?

It really is not complex.... for the ones who can fathom sociology and anthropology and biology and chemistry and economics and politics and psychology... and... foremost of all... history... it simply is...

"An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf. We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

Originally Posted by Navigator

The Oxford English Dictionary

Agnostic: A person who believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not

Three distinct stand-alone positions.

Are you agnostics about Quetzalcoatl or Unkulunkulu or Altjira???

Are you agnostic about Leprechauns and Elves and Fairy God Mothers????

Can you answer the above two questions... ever??

I doubt you will...

[JoeMorgue]

I'm not even going to check to see if this is a new topic or an old because it doesn't matter.

Agnosticism a copout. Unless you as showily and openly "agnostic" about everything to same degree you are about God and literally nobody is, it's dishonest.

I'll introduce anyone to the dragon in my garage if they need it explained further so they can pretend to not get it.

[Wudang]

Welcome back Joe.
My simple view:
"I'm an atheist."
"Aha so you claim to know beyond all doubt God/Thor/Zarawhostra/etc doesn't exist?"
"Ok I'm bored. I'm agnostic, ok? Now piss off and bore someone else."

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm not even going to check to see if this is a new topic or an old because it doesn't matter.

Agnosticism a copout. Unless you as showily and openly "agnostic" about everything to same degree you are about God and literally nobody is, it's dishonest.

I'll introduce anyone to the dragon in my garage if they need it explained further so they can pretend to not get it.

But I'm not agnostic about the dragon in your garage, because it's a falsifiable claim. We just open the garage and see if there's a dragon.

If you said the dragon was undetectable by any senses or instruments because it's currently residing in the 7th Dimension, then it's not falsifiable. In that case I'm agnostic about the dragon. That doesn't mean I'm any more inclined to believe in the latter dragon than the former. It just means that the epistemology behind the two situations is different.

[Foster Zygote]

By the way, this thread reminded me of one of my favorite Kids In The Hall bits.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm not even going to check to see if this is a new topic or an old because it doesn't matter.

Agnosticism a copout. Unless you as showily and openly "agnostic" about everything to same degree you are about God and literally nobody is, it's dishonest.

I'll introduce anyone to the dragon in my garage if they need it explained further so they can pretend to not get it.

Exactly!!!

Originally Posted by Leumas

Agnosticism... i.e. lack of knowledge or impartial knowledge... is the source of all errors all along the spectrum of belief.

Please read this post...

Originally Posted by Leumas

Any argument or position based upon agnosticism is an illogical fallacious argument from ignorance ... by definition.
....
People who claim ignorance ... i.e. agnosticism ... should just shut up and not make any opinion or stance or argument about what they claim agnosticism of... otherwise they are committing illogical fallacies.

Originally Posted by Leumas

...
Ask anyone of the self-proclaimed agnostics whether they are agnostic about Quetzalcoatl or Unkulunkulu or Altjira... they will give you a chortle or a snigger... no matter how agnostic they claim to be... even if they follow it with a "yes" just so that they do not expose the extent of hypocrisy and special pleading they are fallaciously engaging in....

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

But I'm not agnostic about the dragon in your garage, because it's a falsifiable claim. We just open the garage and see if there's a dragon.

Would you be willing to undertake the journey all the way to his garage to do the verification?

Which is exactly what self-proclaimed agnostics fail to do in regards to their inculcated indoctrinated absentee deadbeat sky daddies.

They claim it is unfalsifiable... and disregard that, that in itself, is a fallacy and thus yet another evidence for the lie.... not to mention all of the rest of reality.

My contention is that the concepts that humans have concocted for their sky daddies are indeed falsifiable ... by reality... and if they still retort unfalsifiable claptrap then... ironically... that is even more falsification.





.

[junkshop]

Theism is belief in god/gods. It is a positive claim that these entities exist. It doesn't inherently address whether these things are worthy of/need to be worshipped.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god/gods. An atheist is unconvinced by the arguments/evidence presented by theists.

Antitheism is either a claim that god/gods should not be venerated, they may or may not exist.

Agnoticism is taking the position that there is not enough evidence to take a position.

There is considerable overlap between many of these things. This is not a necessarily a problem, yet experience suggests that it often is.


YMMV.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Couldn't an anti-theist beleive in gods but be apposed to worshipping them? Isn't Gor the God Butcher also an anti-theist?

Or you could look at the historical RL position of the Cainites. They were a sect of gnostics who believed that basically that the God of the OT is a (very much lesser) being, and the OT rules are here to keep your soul trapped here. They literally venerated Caine, the first murderer, because he freed himself by breaking the rules of that lower demiurge. Like, literally, they thought the path to freeing yourself from this trap involves treating the ten commandments as a todo list.

Seems to me like if I were one, I could oppose the spread of that cult on account of:

A. the gnostics were initiation cults. You had to work towards and earn your being told what you're actually believing in. (And you probably see how it makes even more sense with a cult like I just described.) If you're just some Joe Random, you have no business doing our worship too.

(People seem to take it for granted that if I believe in a god, I'd want to spread the word far and wide and tell everyone about it, so everyone can get saved. But historically for a lot of cults it was by invitation only, or even flat out forbidden to convert to them. Hell, even in judaism, the whole point of the story of Ruth is that yeah, you should allow people to convert to it. Previously it was actually forbidden. It wasn't the only one. Even the early Islam wasn't particularly welcoming to converts.)

B. I could see it as actually harmful to society if that kind of morals spread around.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

But I'm not agnostic about the dragon in your garage, because it's a falsifiable claim. We just open the garage and see if there's a dragon.

It's an invisible dragon.

(Oh goodie I hope I get to do the entire skit.)

[HansMustermann]

Also, I wrote about it before, but while people dismiss it as some silly claim that no real religion would make... oh dear, have I got a surprise for them. The invisible dragon isn't even a made up belief. Actual shinto shrines are dedicated to some spirit or another (at least one I know of is literally to a dragon spirit) and usually (but not always) have two helper spirits to mediate between the priestess and the big spirit. Or sometimes it's only that spirit and no helpers. And of course, they're spirits, so they're invisible.

If I claimed to have a dragon spirit at the shinto shrine I built in my garage, and dressed my niece as a priestess, literally no shinto believer would bat an eye. I mean, it's not the most usual of setups to go directly for the dragon at the shrine, but not entirely unprecedented either.

[JoeMorgue]

I'm far less worried about beliefs that you can find one person someone where on the planet then I am about beliefs in the normal mainstream discourse.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Also, I wrote about it before, but while people dismiss it as some silly claim that no real religion would make... oh dear, have I got a surprise for them. The invisible dragon isn't even a made up belief. Actual shinto shrines are dedicated to some spirit or another (at least one I know of is literally to a dragon spirit) and usually (but not always) have two helper spirits to mediate between the priestess and the big spirit. Or sometimes it's only that spirit and no helpers. And of course, they're spirits, so they're invisible.

If I claimed to have a dragon spirit at the shinto shrine I built in my garage, and dressed my niece as a priestess, literally no shinto believer would bat an eye. I mean, it's not the most usual of setups to go directly for the dragon at the shrine, but not entirely unprecedented either.

I wrote this poem years ago.

S L E E P I N G D R A G O N

So sleeps The Dragon
And Dreams us Alive
Form is illusion - And so are the thoughts
Which persistently tell us we need to survive
In a world of unkindness
Where fear is supreme
If we need to recall even one thing at all
Remember - We Live in a Dream

This Dream is for real
Or so it appears
And we're not sure what Love is but we heard
It could scare away fears
There is no need to fear me - I am not here to kill
I wasn't around when the hammer came down
And Jesus was hung on that cross on the hill

I Dream with The Dragon
To help things along
She gives me The Gift's and The Words and The Feel
And The Heart and The Song
Dream Sleeping Dragon
You're the Heart of The Earth
I Dream of The Time and The Place and
The Love and The Life and The Light of your Birth

So Sleeps The Dragon
She Dreams Us awake
And shows Us the wonder of Chaos
And the fact that there's been no mistake
Why did I cry then?
When I learned not to laugh!
Could I not see the forest for trees?
Could I not see the Dream on this Unfolding Path!

Footnote:

OAIC: This is a poem about the Sleeping Dragon, who represents the power of imagination and dreams. The speaker acknowledges the power of fear in the real world and how it can control our thoughts and actions. However, the Sleeping Dragon helps the speaker to overcome this fear by showing them the beauty of chaos and the wonder of life. The speaker reflects on the transformative power of dreams and how they can help us see the world in a different light. The speaker also acknowledges their own journey of growth and self-discovery, and how the Sleeping Dragon has been a guide and source of inspiration along the way.

Related Topic

[sackett]

Sleeping? Don't you mean comatose?

[JoeMorgue]

The point of the Dragon in the Garage metaphor is that God is only "unfalsifiable" because he's built out of vagueness and special pleading.

What's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, mute dragon and no dragon at all? None.

So, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal God who "moves in mysterious way" and a God who's not there?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Couldn't an anti-theist beleive in gods but be apposed to worshipping them?

Heh. I always used "anti-theist" to refer to people who didn't just profess a belief in no gods, but also expressed an open hatred towards theists.

A lot of atheists go beyond dispassionate embrace of the null hypothesis, and dwell in a place of constant outrage that theists exist and have a voice in society.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Heh. I always used "anti-theist" to refer to people who didn't just profess a belief in no gods, but also expressed an open hatred towards theists.

Did you have the above worded like that deliberately or is it just a mistakenly fabricated strawman?

Originally Posted by theprestige

A lot of atheists go beyond dispassionate embrace of the null hypothesis, and dwell in a place of constant outrage that theists exist and have a voice in society.

How do you know... are you their psychologist or are you in their heads??? Or is this just another strawman?


Do you deny that theists are in a place of constant self-righteousness rationalized outrageous and heinous actions that impinge on the humanitarian rights of people and cause pernicious detriment and regression and misery and mayhem??

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

I wrote this poem years ago....

Nice one....

Now.... can you please answer these questions

Originally Posted by Leumas

...
Are you agnostics about Quetzalcoatl or Unkulunkulu or Altjira???

Are you agnostic about Leprechauns and Elves and Fairy God Mothers????

Can you answer the above two questions... ever??

I doubt you will...

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm not even going to check to see if this is a new topic or an old because it doesn't matter.

Agnosticism a copout. Unless you as showily and openly "agnostic" about everything to same degree you are about God and literally nobody is, it's dishonest.

I'll introduce anyone to the dragon in my garage if they need it explained further so they can pretend to not get it.

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

But I'm not agnostic about the dragon in your garage, because it's a falsifiable claim. We just open the garage and see if there's a dragon.

If you said the dragon was undetectable by any senses or instruments because it's currently residing in the 7th Dimension, then it's not falsifiable. In that case I'm agnostic about the dragon. That doesn't mean I'm any more inclined to believe in the latter dragon than the former. It just means that the epistemology behind the two situations is different.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

It's an invisible dragon.

(Oh goodie I hope I get to do the entire skit.)

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Also, I wrote about it before, but while people dismiss it as some silly claim that no real religion would make... oh dear, have I got a surprise for them. The invisible dragon isn't even a made up belief. Actual shinto shrines are dedicated to some spirit or another (at least one I know of is literally to a dragon spirit) and usually (but not always) have two helper spirits to mediate between the priestess and the big spirit. Or sometimes it's only that spirit and no helpers. And of course, they're spirits, so they're invisible.

If I claimed to have a dragon spirit at the shinto shrine I built in my garage, and dressed my niece as a priestess, literally no shinto believer would bat an eye. I mean, it's not the most usual of setups to go directly for the dragon at the shrine, but not entirely unprecedented either.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The point of the Dragon in the Garage metaphor is that God is only "unfalsifiable" because he's built out of vagueness and special pleading.

What's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, mute dragon and no dragon at all? None.

So, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal God who "moves in mysterious way" and a God who's not there?

Will you guys please quit with the dragon stuff!!? If you keep it up, then sooner or later, you'll end up getting the attention of someone who loves nothing more than to drag entire threads about theism down into an unending mire of mindless, meaningless, ever changing moronic banalities about the definitions of god(s).

[Finster]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Heh. I always used "anti-theist" to refer to people who didn't just profess a belief in no gods, but also expressed an open hatred towards theists.

A lot of atheists go beyond dispassionate embrace of the null hypothesis, and dwell in a place of constant outrage that theists exist and have a voice in society.

What a load of dishonest crap. You’ll find few, if any, atheists that give a rat’s ass about someone else’s personal fantasy. Back in reality, what you may find, is a lot of atheists that are outraged when theists use their fantasy as an excuse to dictate and control other people’s behavior: who they can marry, what they can read, what they can wear, what medical care they can receive, what can be taught in schools, and even in some cases what other religions should be allowed. You may also find some objection to religious fantasy being used as an excuse for bigotry, discrimination, murder, war, genocide, and subjugation.

The irony is of course that there are a lot or religious people who are in a constant state of outrage for no other reason than the existence of others that don’t share their particular fantasy. There are plenty of religions where it’s a key tenet that people are evil and should be punished for no other reason than not sharing the same fantasy.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Leumas

Did you have the above worded like that deliberately or is it just a mistakenly fabricated strawman?




How do you know... are you their psychologist or are you in their heads??? Or is this just another strawman?


Do you deny that theists are in a place of constant self-righteousness rationalized outrageous and heinous actions that impinge on the humanitarian rights of people and cause pernicious detriment and regression and misery and mayhem??

Heh.

I have no opinion about any of that.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Finster

What a load of dishonest crap. You’ll find few, if any, atheists that give a rat’s ass about someone else’s personal fantasy. Back in reality, what you may find, is a lot of atheists that are outraged when theists use their fantasy as an excuse to dictate and control other people’s behavior: who they can marry, what they can read, what they can wear, what medical care they can receive, what can be taught in schools, and even in some cases what other religions should be allowed. You may also find some objection to religious fantasy being used as an excuse for bigotry, discrimination, murder, war, genocide, and subjugation.

The irony is of course that there are a lot or religious people who are in a constant state of outrage for no other reason than the existence of others that don’t share their particular fantasy. There are plenty of religions where it’s a key tenet that people are evil and should be punished for no other reason than not sharing the same fantasy.

I confess my conclusions may be based on a relatively small sample size with a large selection bias.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Finster

What a load of dishonest crap. You’ll find few, if any, atheists that give a rat’s ass about someone else’s personal fantasy. Back in reality, what you may find, is a lot of atheists that are outraged when theists use their fantasy as an excuse to dictate and control other people’s behavior: who they can marry, what they can read, what they can wear, what medical care they can receive, what can be taught in schools, and even in some cases what other religions should be allowed. You may also find some objection to religious fantasy being used as an excuse for bigotry, discrimination, murder, war, genocide, and subjugation.

The irony is of course that there are a lot or religious people who are in a constant state of outrage for no other reason than the existence of others that don’t share their particular fantasy. There are plenty of religions where it’s a key tenet that people are evil and should be punished for no other reason than not sharing the same fantasy.

Unlike other people who base opinions on biased limited nothing.... I have an opinion about all of the above.... and it is based on observing lots of reality with bias only for REALITY because I have knowledge and education in the pertinent sciences... and also history and... I watch the news... and I read things and can understand what I read... and I have an effective attention span and memory to retain and fathom things... and my brain is situated in the same temporal period of time as my body... namely 2023 right now.... with full appreciation and utilization of all the knowledge acquisition tools afforded to people so that I can figure things out before I make opinions without knowing and based on nothing.

And my opinion is....

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Will you guys please quit with the dragon stuff!!? If you keep it up, then sooner or later, you'll end up getting the attention of someone who loves nothing more than to drag entire threads about theism down into an unending mire of mindless, meaningless, ever changing moronic banalities about the definitions of god(s).

You mean every thread about God because that ALL threads about God are just making up Gods that exist only in discussion.

Oh I'm so sorry please point me to the theist who DON'T just have a grab bag of special pleadings and excuses and I'll be sure to jump right on talking to them.

Until your thread nannying is more off topic then my dragon.

I will use the Dragon every time God comes up. Don't like it, tough.

The theists won't actually bring a God that anyone actually believes in anywhere near this thread. That's not my fault or my problem.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Finster

What a load of dishonest crap. You’ll find few, if any, atheists that give a rat’s ass about someone else’s personal fantasy. Back in reality, what you may find, is a lot of atheists that are outraged when theists use their fantasy as an excuse to dictate and control other people’s behavior: who they can marry, what they can read, what they can wear, what medical care they can receive, what can be taught in schools, and even in some cases what other religions should be allowed. You may also find some objection to religious fantasy being used as an excuse for bigotry, discrimination, murder, war, genocide, and subjugation.

The irony is of course that there are a lot or religious people who are in a constant state of outrage for no other reason than the existence of others that don’t share their particular fantasy. There are plenty of religions where it’s a key tenet that people are evil and should be punished for no other reason than not sharing the same fantasy.

Originally Posted by theprestige

I confess my conclusions may be based on a relatively small sample size with a large selection bias.

I'm with The prestige on this. In me experience there are plenty of atheists out there that definitely give a rats ass about other peoples fantasies regardless of how much they want to rely on those fantasies to control other peoples behavior.

[JoeMorgue]

How much I care about it another red herring.

If my neighbor tells me he has a dragon in his garage (still not dropping that) but when I open the door to the garage I can't see, hear, touch, taste, smell or in literally anyway detect a dragon and every test proposed is "Okay but you see that won't work on this dragon" I can still say "There is no dragon." without a side discussion about how much or in what way I care about it.

I don't have to justify stating a fact with a motive or a level of required passion.

Again it's the same thing everytime. "God must be discussed differently because he's God."

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

How much I care about it another red herring.

If my neighbor tells me he has a dragon in his garage (still not dropping that) but when I open the door to the garage I can't see, hear, touch, taste, smell or in literally anyway detect a dragon and every test proposed is "Okay but you see that won't work on this dragon" I can still say "There is no dragon." without a side discussion about how much or in what way I care about it.

I don't have to justify stating a fact with a motive or a level of required passion.

Again it's the same thing everytime. "God must be discussed differently because he's God."

And what if this neighbour starts a campaign to prevent owning dogs because they might sniff out his dragon... and tries to stack the local council to proscribe wearing blue jeans because it irritates his alleged dragon and then gets himself "elected" to the council and legislates a new tax to pay for dragon feces disposal trucks?

Not to mention perhaps also going as far as demanding a virgin every year as sacrifice to pacify the dragon from burning the neighbourhood down.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

How much I care about it another red herring.

If my neighbor tells me he has a dragon in his garage (still not dropping that) but when I open the door to the garage I can't see, hear, touch, taste, smell or in literally anyway detect a dragon and every test proposed is "Okay but you see that won't work on this dragon" I can still say "There is no dragon." without a side discussion about how much or in what way I care about it.

I don't have to justify stating a fact with a motive or a level of required passion.

Again it's the same thing everytime. "God must be discussed differently because he's God."

I don't conflate "Dragon" with "GOD".

Thus, I see how it isn't against the rules for atheists to believe in the existence of all/any varieties of Dragons not excluding the ones in garages.

Some atheists might disagree, but even so, it does not affect my position on the Question of GOD [QoG] because once the invisible has been imaged, it is thus visible, even if only within the vast constructs of the Mind.

Once "GOD" is imaged as "Dragon" we have GOD described as a Dragon and a fix on the image.

[JoeMorgue]

That's my point.

Maybe the Dragon in my Garage says nothing. Maybe the Dragon in my garage tells me to take up a sword and slay the non-believers.

Neither of those has anything to to with whether or not there's a dragon in my garage.

Every discussion about God is always the same discussion which literally everything EXCEPT any reason to even being asking the question if God exists in the first place.

That last part is a key part of the "Dragon in my Garage" parable that people miss.

If I tell you there's a dragon in my garage but he's invisible so you can't see him, incorporeal so you can't touch him, mute so you can't hear him, etc, etc, etc the logical conclusions is just "There is no Dragon in my garage" but questioning you are even asking the question in the first place.

If you go your garage and don't see a dragon you don't have actually come up with some validation to prove at what point you can finally stop looking for a dragon in your garage, you just never start looking for one in the first place and nobody has an issue with.

That's I refuse to talk about God in the "God Believer God Apologist" approved way.

I'm not an atheist (or at least I don't think the term is needed, I meet the dictionary definition. I just don't apply the term to myself anymore then I have a special label for myself for not thinking fairies or orbiting teapots or invisible dragon exist). I'm not agnostic. I don't make a distinction between "Do you believe there is no God or do you not believe in God." I have zero burden of proof on the God question.

There is no God. There's no God because there's no reason to think there is. That's the whole point of the dragon metaphor. You're not supposed to actually start trying to figure out if there's a dragon or not.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Navigator

I don't conflate "Dragon" with "GOD".

Well that's not my problem until you can provide a sane, reasonable, non-special pleading reason why they are functionally different.

[Navigator]

Quote:

I don't conflate "Dragon" with "GOD".

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Well that's not my problem until you can provide a sane, reasonable, non-special pleading reason why they are functionally different.

I don't have to provide anything more than what I already have provided.


Sentience defines GOD - but are those definitions even true.

If GOD were an overcoat, this equates to some saying that the top button is the true representation of GOD whiles others insist that it is actually the left pocket which is right.

Stepping back.
I observe that altogether the treads have created a whole garment, and when the garment is removed from its position, there isn't even any framework to be seen which would have held it up...and I have to wonder what trick was played on me as to how the garment came together and floated there all garment-like...for surely it has to be magic, right?

But because I cannot explain it that way, I look for another answer...because it might just be mind-over-matter and the thing 'disappears' when the garment is removed...but not really...



The Invisible Garage Dragon has clothed GOD in the form of a Dragon.
That is not my problem until you can provide a sane, reasonable, non-special pleading reason why they are functionally the same.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm not an atheist (or at least I don't think the term is needed, I meet the dictionary definition. I just don't apply the term to myself anymore then I have a special label for myself for not thinking fairies or orbiting teapots or invisible dragon exist). I'm not agnostic. I don't make a distinction between "Do you believe there is no God or do you not believe in God." I have zero burden of proof on the God question.

There is no God. There's no God because there's no reason to think there is. That's the whole point of the dragon metaphor. You're not supposed to actually start trying to figure out if there's a dragon or not.

Well - whatever you are/your position is on the question, it is obvious that it involves the creed highlighted.

What is your position, if not A-theist or Agnostic, that it follows this line of thinking and approach?

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

I don't have to provide anything more than what I already have provided.

Sentience defines GOD - but are those definitions even true.

If GOD were an overcoat, this equates to some saying that the top button is the true representation of GOD whiles others insist that it is actually the left pocket which is right.....

Nope... they have defined GODSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS ad nuseam.... not to mention an all but endless litany of other woo woo and claptrap.

Are you agnostic about all of them???

Are you agnostics about Quetzalcoatl or Unkulunkulu or Altjira???

Are you agnostic about Leprechauns and Elves and Fairy God Mothers????

Can you answer the above questions... ever??

I doubt you will...

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm far less worried about beliefs that you can find one person someone where on the planet then I am about beliefs in the normal mainstream discourse.

I wasn't talking about one person on the planet. Shinto is the official religion of Japan. It's also the main reason you had to nuke Japan twice to get them to admit defeat. Because previously the emperor was divine BECAUSE of the Shinto religion, and it was enough for them to rather consider a literal Zapp Brannigan plan to send millions to their death than concede a defeat without securing a clause that the Emperor will be left alone.

Literally. The final plan for the defense of the home islands was to send millions of civilians with sharpened bamboo poles at the American machineguns, until the American have enough of slaughtering civilians and give up. That literal of a Zapp Brannigan plot.

So yeah, I wouldn't say it's entirely a diversion. Xianity hasn't caused anything similar recently, while the religion which literally has at least one shrine to an invisible dragon did

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

I wasn't talking about one person on the planet. Shinto is the official religion of Japan. It's also the main reason you had to nuke Japan twice to get them to admit defeat. Because previously the emperor was divine BECAUSE of the Shinto religion, and it was enough for them to rather consider a literal Zapp Brannigan plan to send millions to their death than concede a defeat without securing a clause that the Emperor will be left alone.

Literally. The final plan for the defense of the home islands was to send millions of civilians with sharpened bamboo poles at the American machineguns, until the American have enough of slaughtering civilians and give up. That literal of a Zapp Brannigan plot.

So yeah, I wouldn't say it's entirely a diversion. Xianity hasn't caused anything similar recently, while the religion which literally has at least one shrine to an invisible dragon did

In Christianity, the 'Invisible Dragon" might be considered Satan.
The Hebrews themselves apparently didn't really differentiate between YHVH and Satan apart from seeing Satan as an entity who did the bidding of YHVH and acted as an Accuser and tormentor of humans that dog was created to do.

Is "God" and the "Devil" one and the same -
With one half to adore and the other half to blame?

[Jack by the hedge]

It doesn't matter how the invisible dragon might be regarded in the Marvel universe if it's a DC character.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

It doesn't matter how the invisible dragon might be regarded in the Marvel universe if it's a DC character.

*Clap*