" Eternal Salvation or TRIPLE Your Money Back! " "The evil according to his arrogance does not make any research all his ideas are: 'There is no' God '." Psalm 10:4
In a comment to my previous post,
days
asked me where is 'I have already' gutted the following theme: "declared agnostics taking distances from atheism to be a strong indication Paraculo "
. I could not find anything, so I located the terrible suspicion that all this has happened elsewhere
. But never mind, I gutted for the first time (at least for this size) here. The reason 'that all the phrases "I'm agnostic, but not an atheist," or "to be atheists and' irrational that they are believers," or "with atheists there ' dialogue, but with the agnostics and 'able to be discussed, and often' involved in, or has the implication slimy, "but then you're not an atheist, you are agnostic, and 'different' (this 'the most' insidious be careful 'cause usually the pronunciation of pedophile priests
smart (*)
), have the same sickly sweet smell and doing good from eighth grade, or hairy "the dead are all equal" all the world's national reconciliation. It and 'mass culture spread in a narrow definition of atheism, whose function is not' to describe the status of millions of people, but to justify the sentences given above, providing an extremist party that can act as a dialectically balanced the extremes of 'On the other hand. The difference is that while those who believe in the existence of God for irrational reasons and not 'minority (not even counting the vast majority of believers in our modern world that poor still believe in such things as miracles, the truth 'literal of at least some of the texts, the existence of some form of existence after death
, the possibility' of a direct relationship between the individual and divinity '), I strongly suspect that those who not believe in the existence of God
(compared to the majority of atheists who believe that the problem did not answer, and were therefore classified as "agnostic" from the definition hairy above) is entirely minority. (So much so that I do not think of any examples. Perhaps Oriana Fallaci, whose atheism I have the vaguest recollection but which I can not find the sources.) For example, I think he makes perfect sense to define an atheist who admits the possibility 'of an entity' creator, but he refuses to believe that it has no interest in the existence of human beings. The existence for such a person, and 'clearly
godless
. (although I have 'been pointed out in comments that this category is called deism
.) The concept of atheism and mica' s so well defined as all those bad people from the food they want you to believe:
Writers Have disagreed on how best to define atheism, and much of the literature on the subject is incompatible. There are many Terminological Discrepancies in discussions of atheism. Continues disagreement about the scope and applicability of atheism, Including Those Who to make no positive assertion, those who have not consciously rejected theism, and those who do not reject all supernatural phenomena. Part of this ambiguity arises from the related difficulty in defining words like theism, deity, and God. The various conceptions of God and deities lead to differing ideas regarding the scope of atheism.
La definizione di agnostico inoltre e' molto piu' controversa e complicata di quanto comunemente non si creda:
Critics of the term "agnostic" claim that there is nothing distinctive in being agnostic because even many theists do not claim to know with certainty that a god exists—only that they believe it to be true. Under this asserted distinction between the words "belief" and "knowledge," agnosticism has recently started suffering from terminological ambiguity. While critics maintain the distinction is not contrived; others reject the distinction as trifling. By contrast, compare: * "I believe God(s) exist(s)" means that "I know God(s) exist(s)".
* "I believe God(s) exist(s)" can still mean "I don't know if God(s) exist(s)".
If this distinction is accepted, the term agnostic becomes orthogonal to theism without further qualifiers, and many qualifiers become contradictory unless the distinction is accepted. If this distinction is ultimately accepted by the larger public, the group formerly described by the term will again find themselves without a label, because the qualifiers Their Would Be Provided inappropriate for philosophy.
To illustrate better 'cause I feel ridiculous distinction between atheists and agnostics, attributing to the first end and closed-mindedness and openness to seconds rather enlightened the possibility' that the believers are right after all, and I quote the famous argument of the cups you 'Bertrand Russell:
If I were to suggest
That Between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody Would Be Able to disprove my assertion Provided I were to add Careful That the teapot is too small even to be Revealed by Our Most Powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say That, since my assertion can not be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Questo (che condivido) e' un argomento agnostico e non ateistico, eppure non dimostra alcuna apertura ne' tantomeno
rispetto
(su questo punto torno dopo) verso la fede e le convinzioni di alcun credente. Da notare che Bertrand Russell, scopro adesso, pensava quanto segue al riguardo della questione ateismo/agnosticismo:
In his 1949 speech, "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?", Russell expressed his difficulty over whether to call himself an atheist or an agnostic:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot That evidence there are not the Homeric gods.
- Bertrand Russell, Collected Papers, vol. 11, p. 91
The theme of mutual respect between believers and atheists and 'felt very good from the assembly
: http://www.montag.it/blog/archive/003583.html
He' s a person very reasonable, and then automatically, if it expresses a concept full of open-mindedness and universal friendship that you can 'translate as "we need to respect their partners," I feel like giving scontatamente reason. Yet, something I did not come back as I read his post and the discussion full of respect and that 'followed in his comments, and I knew what I read elsewhere returned a comment, completely independent of that discussion,
brullonulla
, who observed that if we respect all then you are not respecting anything. But 
to facilitate discussion lighthouse 'what people usually discuss these things does not do: distinguish between various things, very different, which can be understood when it comes to religion. Provo
respect for the idea that God exists? It depends on what you mean. Provo
respect for the idea of an entity 'creative undefined? Yes, 'and even I can agree (without ceasing to be an atheist, just define properly this vague entity', and if one of 'a definition that the set of laws of the universe is called God, this probably makes him a believer, but I believe that the substance does not change compared to someone who is not from 'the thing as God, and that technically it would probably be an atheist). Provo
respect for the idea that such entities' is conscious and sentient? It ', even if that idea can not' be proven (and incidentally, I tend to think otherwise, here we are in the field of teacups' Russell). Provo
respect for the idea that such entities 'feel love for humanity' and wants his own good? Gia 'began to feel little. Not only are the cups you 'Russell whirling wildly, but there too' middle
so 'much in these beliefs anthropocentric conceit to make me a bad
mood. Provo respect for the idea that such entities '
interfere with the history of mankind'? No. Provo respect for the stories of miracles
, for the life after death, for the worship of Padre Pio and the like? No. Good grief, we are in the XXI century. This is very different aspects of religiosity ', some very low level and of no interest to intellectuals, but very relevant for the vast majority of believers in the world, reserved for the speeches of other philosophers and educated people (which are unfortunately a part irrelevant - and therefore uninteresting in many ways - of humanity ').
These statements may seem to non-compliance surprising, even provocative. In fact, there 's a very common misunderstanding (which I myself am not immune) than among
and condescension. Or even compared anthropological, and that 'something different from the intellectual respect we are talking about here. A few examples of the distinction between different forms of respect
: If someone believes in the Virgin Mary in Medjugorje, I
respect his need for spirituality 'and otherworldly consolation. The same respect I feel for her, I feel for those who believe in the horoscope. (But if 'I find out that someone dear to me make decisions relevant to his life according to the signs of the zodiac, I feel compelled to set aside this questionable form of respect and try to explain frankly what 'that I think.) If someone participates in the procession with devotion to the patron saint and offered him gifts and relies on him for his prayers requested materials, I feel for him the same respect
I feel for the tribes' animistic religions of the Amazon or the ancient primordial all over the world. Implicitly, however, 'I do not consider my peers on the scale of civilization, to say how bad it is. If someone, as I believe the majority of believers even educated, believe in life after death, compared
these extreme consequences of the understandable fear of nothingness, so 'as I have absolute respect for poor people due to trauma or neurological disorders have delusional beliefs. I understand however that it is broadly considered a sign of mentality 'open to try a real respect, that' an intellectual respect for everything '.
My personal opinion, and 'that it resulted solely from the fact that we are influenced by the environment around us, so we define what
reasonable' and that 'only normal in the sense of accepted by many people around us
. The nudity 'but the king' and 'highly appreciated when they come into contact with each other slightly different environments, in which the concept of normal 'and' different. A few years ago I was very impressed with the campaign against Scientology, the German government: Germany had in fact included among the seven Scientology to watch as dangerous, while in the U.S. and 'considered a religion. Discriminate against a sect and 'considered ok (indeed, desirable in principle) by all, while discriminating against a religion and' widely considered to be an abomination. Therefore whether the status of something, and '"sect" or "religion" makes a big difference, and understandably the good Scientologists broke his cock a lot about it (do not know then what it' s over). Obviously I do not miss' the analogy with the persecution of the Jews, that when si ha a che fare con i tedeschi e' sempre l' Arma Dialettica Finale
. 
Dice
Scott Adams
: Most enlightened people also agree that it’s okay to discriminate against people for the CHOICES they make. For example, if a job applicant shows up with an obscenity tattooed on his forehead, you can reject him without any legal ramifications. If someone does drugs, or drinks on the job, you can discriminate against him for those choices too. When it comes to discrimination against people’s choices, the only exception is a person’s choice of religion. You can’t discriminate because someone picked the wrong religion. And here I’m only talking about the big name religions. You can still pick on the little religions. If a guy shows up for a job interview and tells you his religion requires him to wear a stuffed rhino penis as a hat, you can show him the door. But if he says his prophet walked on water, or rode to heaven on a flying horse, you slap a name tag on his cubicle and hope for the best. If he thinks he might have reincarnated from a caterpillar, sign him up. If he says he’s wearing special underpants to ward off evil, put him on the fast track.
Uno dei capisaldi della nostra civilta' moderna e' il rispetto per le convinzioni religiose (a patto che la religione sia certificata ISO, e non sia solo una setta per picchiatelli e/o finalizzata ad
andare a letto con le fedeli
). But in fact, 'cause? I think it is just a pragmatic reason: religion and 'a thing that can' bring people to be very very touchy, and then when a religion has a certain critical mass, and 'it's best to avoid angering the faithful (**)
. very interesting case of Rachel Bevilacqua, a member of the Church of the SubGenius
(***)
, which you can read here: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/20/update_on_subgenius_. html
http://www.buffalobeast.com/96/subgenius.custody.htm
In short, this young lady has lost custody of her son because his former companion and 'played the card of its membership of the SubGenius as proof of his unworthiness' as a mother. The courts (a practicing Catholic) the argument that it was a college prank, a parody of the church, seems not to have yielded very positive effects. Repeatedly
The judge asked, "Why a goat? What's so Significant about a goat's head? "When Rachel Replied," I just thought the word 'goat' was funny, "Judge Punch lost his temper Completely
Everything 'reminds me of the scene topography of one of the best novels of all times, "The Joke" by Milan Kundera, and there is much to laugh, to read extracts from the records of this case, except that Judge Punch eventually ruled that the woman will never again 'no contact, even correspondence with his son. And since February 2006, so 'e'.
You can not 'help but wonder if he would be a better strategy to Mrs. Bevilacqua, play the card of take the piss all the way around the world, and declare that the Church of the SubGenius and' a very serious thing and She believes with conviction, and appeal to the Constitution of his country.
Texts and Notes:
(*)
Since, like all the best pedophiles, are accustomed to using the dialectic with the ultimate goal of pigiarla in the ass to the simple and innocent. remember, for example, a discussion with a priest of Opus Dei at the time when I had a shit to do (~ 19 years), and then I agreed to embark on discussions with those who wanted to convert me (and since I am a person who respects
democratically all, what happened In the same way 'and with the same words that they were Catholics, Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses - but you are sure that Jehovah's Witnesses do not open the door and the Mormons say that c'avete time. bastards.) To my unfortunate self-definition of a skeptic, the cunning priest who knew the manuals of philosophy (or at least the Bignami) parties 'citing Pyrrho of Elis in the fourth, then talking non-stop (to stop me stop it) shows me' as skepticism to deny the reality 'of my own senses, and so is bullshit, and then if I look at this short, apple and apple touch this I do believe that we should doubt my senses as to the existence of this apple? Of course not, so why are
agnostic about the existence of God? (**)
I realize that it could be argued that it 'right to respect something just because' is shared by many. On this subject I have no clear opinion, and fluctuates quite frequently between being or not agree. Whatever position you choose in this regard, however, I think that should be maintained at all times, and it is clear that this has a cost. I mean, for example, a significant proportion of the people and 'racist in one way or another: we must respect their racism?
I think most people agree that it is right, even a duty, and intensified efforts to educate people against racism. And what do anti-racist campaigns aimed at children is something very noble.
A person truly believe that religions are harmful to society 'would hardly be recognized as a philanthropist if you propose a similar campaign against religiosity', and if it were an elementary school teacher trying to educate children against religion, his act would be considered very negatively even by the vast majority of atheists. One
was that it brought out the religious law would be considered totalitarian and inhuman as the Albania of Enver Hoxha (who in fact outlawed religions, which I dare not even the Soviet Union 'never formally done). Most modern states have laws that punish instead of racism, both in word and omissions in the works.
(***)
The underlying philosophy of the SubGenius reminds me a lot of religion in "Ice 9" by Kurt Vonnegut. It also invites to distrust of all religions, including herself. In it the protagonist is really spiritual consolation, and I will leave you with this message of hope.
