 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Inter-Empire Political Discussion Thread
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| If you care enough, there are long articles on the web debating the merits of each definition. |
|
I would like to read them, please. Can you post the links here?
  
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#154
by Veteran vincible - 4/9/2004 9:34:43 PM
Darn it, there was a particular really good article on the history of the words that I read several months ago, and now I can't find it. Frustrating. Anyway, here's what I came up with:
This article defines "strong" and "weak" atheism and agnosticism (common terms for people who discuss this issue), and looks at the historical usage of "agnostic" as opposed to today's:
 Link
This explores strong and weak atheism a little further:
Link
This short article looks at the definition of "gnostic" and "theist" (and their opposites "agnostic" and "atheist") and comes up with four categories, one for each combination:
Link
This page discusses various competing definitions, along with who tends to use each one:
Link
A discussion of misunderstandings of the terms:
Link
An article by the editor of Positive Atheism Magazine which asserts "agnosticism" is a subset of atheism (along with a few more "editorial comments"):
Link
So anyway, there are a lot of competing definitions out there. In my experience, most people who self-identify as atheists mean "weak atheists", many who identify as "agnostic" also really mean "weak atheist", and most religious people, when they hear the word "atheist," assume that what is really meant is "strong atheist," which ends up leading to silly semantical arguments.
[Message Edited]
        
| |
|
|
|
| Thank you for being completely rude and insulting to Atheists, its very nice of you. |
|
Renegade was posting an article obtained elsewhere.
  
| |
|
|
|
|
|
#159
by Veteran vincible - 4/9/2004 11:57:12 PM
Hmm... Bam Bam, some quick googling came up with:
Link
I'm going to try and keep this post short so I will only be partially quoting. I obviously didn't read the whole gigantic document, but a couple quotes I came across while skimming:
Jefferson:
"to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical"--from a Virginia law proposed by Jefferson (and passed). So he opposed making people paying taxes to support religion, and therefore opposed religion in government. There are a couple other quotes that bear this out.
Another famous one is "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." So religion is not a legitimate area for government, he says.
There's a later one about how he opposes a professorship in Theology at a public university--further than we go today in church/state separation. And lots more by him, not all of which I read.
Madison, "Father of the Constitution":
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States"
Congress, in voting a plan for the government of the Western territories, retained a clause setting aside one section in each township for the support of public schools, while striking out the provision reserving a section for the support of religion. Commented Madison: "How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment." So government support of religion in this case was "foreign to the authority of Congress"
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative." there's some more discussion on this which is worth reading, including a bit on Army chaplains and religious national holidays (neither of which he was very happy with). Again he's more strongly in favor of church-state separation than we are today.
"Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance."
Thomas Paine:
"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith."
What are your thoughts on these?
[Message Edited]
| |
|
|
|
| And what was the point of posting that article, hmm? |
|
I'm just guess, but I assume it's because he wanted to make a point.  But that point was not necessarily encapsulated by the title, otherwise the rest of the article would have been superfluous.
| |
|
|
|
#163
by Veteran Gerakken - 4/10/2004 4:22:14 AM
The old church and state thing. Ah, a tricky one. Personally, I do not like this strip mining of all signs of faith from public life, but the alternative (if we are going to be fair) would be equally complex. America just ain't gonna be the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant country like it was. This is not a bad thing, in fact, it is a good thing in my opinion, but what do you do when the Christian guy wants his Ten Commandments at the Court House and then the Muslim wants some select Koran verses as well, but then the Hindu wants some select passages of his holy books and then everybody wants a piece of their religious pie on display? You either have to deny them all (promoting neutrality at best and atheism at worst) or go ancient Roman style and allow all the gods to be honored.
In general, people are so busy trying to preserve Christian values in America or strike them down in public that they are ignoring the other religions sneaking on up the demographic ladder. If the religious regalia stays in our institutions (Congress, the Supreme Court, our money, so forth), then fairness should be an issue eventually.
So it would be really interesting to see if a real die-hard ultra-conservative Christian (for example) would accept the Commandments hanging at City Hall next to Daoist sayings and the fragments of many other faiths. The Christian could not just say "We are the majority. Those other guys are relatively minor." That would be unfairly barring the rights of the minorities. So which would you take, no matter what faith or lack of you may have, all or nothing?
   
| |
|
| go ancient Roman style and allow all the gods to be honored. |
|
I'm in favour of that - come and join the Centurions if you are good enough! 
Alex
       
| |
|
#165
by Citizen Kazzryl - 4/10/2004 7:13:38 AM
The following would like to be posted by XgEvangelist:
As some of you may or may not know i'm having some peculiar problems with my galciv account in posting in the forums, so would someone who takes part in the inter-empire political discussion thread please post this as a statement i have to make, i feel strongly that i need to post this, and i would really appreciate it if one of you guys could, thanks.
" Quote:
Yes, thats not the point. I know he posted that article to make a point, it's the content of the article I take issue with. And since he posted it without any disclaimers, I assume he supports the content of it.
as an aetheist i too take offense to the article, the second article the first was fine, the second begins by calling atheists ignorant, idiots etc. and renegade didn't post a disclaimer, nor did he take the time to add to the post his specific reasons for posting it or apologizing for it's content, sounds like a flame to me albeit a subtle one, i am not militant against those who are religious (barring some very extreme groups that most everyone would agree including renegade need to be dealt with) and just as KEmperor said i have not seen any other atheists go around calling christians, muslims, and jews idiots, ignorant, stupid fools or nothing of the sort.
*sarcastic* although now i might be inclined to do so.
but renegade if your intent wasn't to insult then please do explain your intent in posting it, whether it be in trying to convert some of us, or it was just an honest mistake (didn't know it sounded offensive etc.)
and what do you think exar, and technician did it feel insulting to you as well?
i would have complained about this sooner but again my ability to post is screwed up
Quote:
Religion's circular evidence makes me sick.
agreed technician, i don't mind an argument in favor of religion if as long as what others think is also taken into account
for example: don't just say your a proponent of the young earth theory (is that it the 7 day belief is called?) also explain why the radio carbon dating results are wrong at placing it much older, just simply saying it is wrong is not good enough.
I know you can read renegade and i'm going to tell you something about a friend of mine who hates a certain type of behavior: she get's mad when someone says something she doesn't know what that is, then that person just repeats the same thing a differen't way.
don't take it the wrong way i want to respect the arguments you are making in your favor but, your making it very hard to do so. "
  
| |
|
|
|
| So which would you take, no matter what faith or lack of you may have, all or nothing? |
|
I for one would accept the all if someone could use "common sense" about it. (I know, that's a can of worms in itself - bear with me.) I would have no problem with the competing religions (or absence thereof) competing freely in the marketplace of ideas. It's when you start getting some guy claiming his excuse for a tax writeoff or someone's cult of personality is a religion that really brings the whole thing down. But as a local talk show host around here likes to say, "Government is what we do to replace common sense". 
 
| |
|
|
|
If y'all will pardon the pun, just playing Devil's advocate here...Technician, a few points on your previous post.
| God, as all myths was created because people are afraid of death. |
|
Shaky and highly debatable. IF God is a creation of Man, it's a lot easier to argue that the concept arose out of a need to explain existence itself and to justify a power structure that divides Man into social classes. Remember the "divine right of kings?" Belief in an afterlife is an adjunct to Judeo-Christian religion, not the whole show. Regardless of the payoff after death, religions are based on the promotion of a code of behavior during life.
From Mayito:
| They deny the overwhelming evidence of design |
|
Technician:
| What evidence? There is overwhelming evidence of that the universe exists and everything around us is a creation of science. Not God. If there is a God somebody has to point this overwhelming evidence out. Religion's circular evidence makes me sick. I have no faith, no religion. It is not a belief, but the only truth. |
|
No, it's your interpretation of the evidence unearthed by science. Earth supports a fabulously diverse ecosystem, which if not unique in the universe is certainly very, very unlikely. That ecosystem has proven adaptable to populations ranging from single-celled organisms to billions of humans over at least several millennia, by anyone's math.
Throw in an atmosphere that supports controlled combustion - a careful adjustment of oxygen is necessary to support life and fire, while too great an amount would ignite the atmosphere at the first spark...What are the odds of that atmospheric mix developing in the first place, and being so adaptable and self-maintaining over time?
Throw in the moon. One large satellite around what is, after all, a relatively small planet is definitely unusual, from what we can see of the other planets in our solar system. Recent scientific studies indicate that the moon helps to stabilize the axis of Earth's rotation. Without it, over time Earth's axis would swing wildly, exposing different portions of the surface to the Sun. That would alternately melt and freeze the polar caps, as well as eliminate seasons and the growing cycle as we know it. Now, contrast photos of the moon's far side with the side facing Earth; that thing has been a revolving shield protecting Earth from a staggering amount of space debris. Any of the larger impacts that the Moon absorbed, if they would have hit Earth instead at precisely the WRONG place and time, could have had a cataclysmic result. What are the odds of such a large satellite - almost a daughter planet, really - falling into a nearly-perfect stable orbit?
What are the odds of all of this developing by dust particles, plasma, etc. floating around, affected by gravitational forces? Weigh all of those odds against the POSSIBILITY that it was orchestrated by a higher power that science cannot yet detect - meaning God. Is this "evidence" of a grand design? Maybe not - but against those odds, it's certainly a POSSIBILITY.
Humans are unique in that we have a recorded history that allows each generation to build on the achievements of those previous. Our science today is much more advanced than it was only a century ago; to claim that our knowledge of the creation of the universe is already complete is a trifle vain. Take evolution, for instance. The theory itself is relatively new. Recorded history is too short to show any significant change from one species to another, at least in terms of scientic observation. What we have instead are remains of extinct species that seem to indicate changes over time. They could also be remains of species that did NOT change, but simply died off over time. Until science has been around long enough to actually see evolution in action, we have a plausible and even attractive theory, but that's a long way from solid proof.
| This book states God created the world in seven days, planet Earth is not even 100 thousand years old ?? Science gives proof that the universe is 15 billion years old, proof of the big bang, proof of evolution. |
|
The big bang strikes me as even shakier than evolution. Unless you adopt the "universal accordion" theory of expansion and contraction leading to an endless series of "big bangs" - which ignores entropy - what caused it in the first place? The odds of Earth as it stands today developing from a ball of dust and plasma are slim to begin with; but if you throw in a cataclysmic start like the big bang, which only spread out matter in clumps sufficiently diverse to form galaxies, stars and planets WITHOUT spreading it too thin or converting it completely to energy instead, what are the odds then? I'm willing to admit that this all MIGHT be the result of a conscious design instead.
| I like the idea that people that learn reality is explainable by science have no law. Laws like Religion are created by people. We have to obey laws or go to jail. How many people kill each other for having some different God? Science tells me one person is not any different from any other person. We do not have God telling us it is okay to kill people that have different beliefs. |
|
The Nazis abused science - not religion - to claim that the Aryan "race" was, indeed, different from other people, giving them the right to do as they wished with "lesser" races. Likewise, religion has been equally abused - whether by Christians in the Inquisition, or Muslim extremists today - to persecute others. After all, how does the Inquisition stack up to Christ saying "Love your enemies?" What you're dealing with in all of these cases is human beings twisting either system to further their own aims. Dropping the blame for all this on religion itself misses the point.
The fact that we're even having this discussion indicates that humans have free will - whether it evolved independently or was bestowed by a God. Based on that, anyone is welcome to believe whatever they'd like.
I can get along just fine with a confirmed agnostic, who argues that since we don't have evidence of God's existence and don't seem to need a God on a daily basis, that the whole discussion is moot. But a confirmed athiest, vehemently claiming that God can't exist and that religion is inherently an excuse for atrocities is a stretch. That sort of rhetoric turns my stomach as much as some of the quotes in this thread have apparently turned yours, because it's equally closed-minded.
But I digress from the political purpose of this thread, which has admittedly mutated a bit over the last few pages. Bam-Bam:
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof |
|
I believe that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was simply to avoid a state-sponsored religious denomination. Remember the social history in Europe in the years leading up to the founding of America as an independent nation. Virtually every country had a religious minority who were discriminated against - the Puritans in England, the Huguenots in France... Despite the fact that many of the great names in the Enlightenment which were the basis of the Constitution's ideas were self-described agnostics, this country was formed from a population that was overwhelmingly religious.
This is not a separation of Church and State as such; it's simply a refusal to endorse a particular religion. In today's society, I believe that the complete separation between the two is appropriate, even if it is erring on the side of caution. Genghis Hank correctly points out that anyone could form a "religion" and demand appropriate rights.
For an allegedly retired player, I seem to be spending a lot of time in this thread!
  
| |
|
|
|
#171
by Veteran Gerakken - 4/11/2004 2:06:27 PM
| For an allegedly retired player, I seem to be spending a lot of time in this thread! |
|
Just because you're retired doesn't mean you don't need some mental exercise once in while. Old folks (and old Galciv players) need to stay mentally stimulated. 
Now to delve briefly into the religious side of the thread:
| The fact that we're even having this discussion indicates that humans have free will - whether it evolved independently or was bestowed by a God. Based on that, anyone is welcome to believe whatever they'd like. |
|
Free will, that has so much meaning. I am moved to write a few of my philosophical thoughts on that and a couple of other topics, as sometimes mulling over obvious things lead to the inobvious.
To think that life would be so much simpler if pre-destination were proven. Then nobody would be responsible for their actions. Afterall, if God's plan says you are to be the next Ted Bundy, then that's not your fault. Well, I do think God has a plan, but He is not exactly scripting every part. We stand or fall on our own in my book.
Some of us may need the help of a strong social order (such as family, friends, community and church), some of us choose to be the foundations of such order to help both themselves and others, and a few walk the path alone. But no matter how we tread the path of spirituality (devoutly religious, atheistic, or somewhere in between) we all got to live together and face death alone.
Strange sentence, that last one. Some people may say how can we live together when wars rage or even everyday disputes tear individuals apart. Well, people seem to be better at living than dying. No matter how hectic and crazy things get, somehow we get by. The massive throng that is humanity survives even if specific cultures or belief systems are eliminated by the tides of history. So we all do live together even if some of us do not get along because of a common human experience. We all live, die, love, hate, everything. Until the last of us is gone, we all know what it means to be human. One's culture can shape the perceptions of life, but cannot change the facts of it.
On the other side of the coin, from single deaths to mass destruction, we all face death through our own individual prisms: a person's experiences, thoughts, fears, and beliefs all prepare us in some way for the day we all know is to come. So we all die alone because each person, even though human like the rest of us, has a unique perspective. Now what waits for us after we die is unknown. Most of us believe in some form of afterlife. Whether this be because of divine plan or our own collective will to survive is up for debate. We just spend a lifetime trying to gather the proper spiritual gear to prepare for a trip into the unknown.
Like any trip to a rugged and unexplored landscape, those of us who were lucky enough to choose the right gear will do well. Those of us who are lacking the right equipment will be in trouble. And then there is always the possibility that we could be falling over a waterfall into oblivion, so one cannot be safe no matter what is in the pack. But given a choice between no chance or an unknown chance, I think most of us are packing gear just in case. It just comes down to petty arguments about parkas vs. khakis, rope and pitons vs. a compass and a machete. The terrain may be unknown, but we all have to traverse it.
| |
|
#172
by Veteran vincible - 4/12/2004 1:33:22 AM
The typical argument from design doesn't really qualify as "argument" so much as assertion, as it leaves out its crucial logical step. (I'll grant that there are other flavors of the design argument than the one I'm addressing here... but this is the most common one and it's the one that's been hinted at in a couple posts.)
The argument from design usually goes something like, "we need all the events in some list to occur for life to occur. All these events are improbable. So the probability of all these events occurring is really small. So either life is an incredible fluke, or the universe has a god guiding it."
The problem is that there are lots of chances... the universe is a big place, with lots and lots of planets. So the real question is not whether life on a particular planet is improbable, but whether the probability of life arising anywhere at all is small... ie whether the product (probability per planet)*(number of planets) is small.
Is it? To answer this question, you need to go beyond the typical intelligent design (ID) argument. Let's take Ben's example of the earth having a large moon being necessary for life. How likely is having a big moon? Sure, it's improbable. Does that mean a 1/100 chance? A 1/1 million chance? A 1/1 trillion chance? I doubt anyone could make a good case for any of those numbers, but each has hugely different implications for the argument from design.
So what the ID argument boils down to is saying that a certain number that we don't know (probability of life per planet) is smaller than another number that we don't know (the inverse of the number of planets in the universe). (The logic of this can be extended to certain other flavors of the design argument as well.)
ID advocates don't even try to make the case in a logical fashion. They're generally content to say, "well, doesn't it *look* improbable that these events would occur anywhere?" And maybe it does... but humans are ridiculously bad at probability. Fairly simple statistics puzzles baffle us regularly. When it comes to the universe, the situation is worse, as we have no direct experience with any of the concepts involved: billions of years, probabilities of various complex chemical reactions, and so on. Our intuition about whether something is "likely" is worthless when it comes to this issue--and thus, so is this version of the argument from design.
Typically we get a retreat at this point--from "god must have intervened" to "god might have intervened." Which is true. But then we end up with a classically flawed "god of the gaps" formulation--if we don't understand a phenomenon, people rush to see God in it. We see this in primitives seeing god in the seasons, in the sun and rain and mountains and all else that they could not understand. But science has continually narrowed these gaps. The argument has been wrong throughout history, and there is no particular reason to trust it now more than before.
I'm not saying that a god couldn't have existed, or interfered--just that there's no particular reason to think so at this point. Perhaps in another five hundred years we'll understand enough about the formation of life to be able to assess its probability, but until then the ID argument should wait.
[Message Edited]
| |
|
|
|
Technician, you're apparently missing my point:
| The Nazis abused science - not religion - to claim that the Aryan "race" was, indeed, different from other people, giving them the right to do as they wished with "lesser" races. Likewise, religion has been equally abused - whether by Christians in the Inquisition, or Muslim extremists today - to persecute others. After all, how does the Inquisition stack up to Christ saying "Love your enemies?" What you're dealing with in all of these cases is human beings twisting either system to further their own aims. Dropping the blame for all this on religion itself misses the point. |
|
If, on the other hand, you feel that science is always completely objective and pure, and anyone who abuses its sanctity does so in the name of religion; and religion is always inherently flawed, evil and self-serving; and that the only difference between Nazism and all religions is the name; all of which are certainly plausible interpretations of your posts - well, then, it's obvious that the discussion is going nowhere. As I said earlier, "That sort of rhetoric turns my stomach as much as some of the quotes in this thread have apparently turned yours, because it's equally closed-minded."
Vincible:
I wasn't attempting to argue a "design" from a statistical standpoint. I wasn't even aware that there were those who DID. It seems silly, as religious beliefs are beyond objective measurement and statistics - at least those we have available now. "Faith" is a state of mind and not of being, and can't be proven.
Simple odds can't prove a theory from a positive standpoint; but they can show the likelihood of other possibilities at the negative end. For instance, if we DID have a complete statistical sampling of our galaxy's planet distribution, even if the odds argued against Earth's evolution by random chance, that wouldn't mean it was created. Likewise, if every solar system had a stable Earthlike world, that wouldn't rule out a divine origin. Odds can't prove a theory; but they can point out the desirability of considering other options. In this case, the possibility that science doesn't have all of the answers on this subject, and that religion's views are worth considering as well.
P.S. I think it's obvious that I'm not trying to convert anyone here - the "free will" reference (interesting thoughts there, G.!) should have made that clear. My personal religious convictions are probably vague and heretical enough to send shivers up the spine of most professional ministers. But considering the political discussions we've been having that feature religion heavily, I thought the discussion on religion itself might be appropriate. Some reactions indicate that I may have been in error, so I'll step off the soapbox.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
You don't see me posting here about how Christianity is a fool's choice, do you?
