Moderator: Forum Administrators
Lur wrote:I never know what to make of the whole "agnostic" thing. I voted none and atheist.
mōdgethanc wrote:I think I might vote agnostic now, since I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in God, but I don't know there is no god either, and I don't want to imply that by choosing "atheist".
Do you know they don't exist?linguoboy wrote:mōdgethanc wrote:I think I might vote agnostic now, since I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in God, but I don't know there is no god either, and I don't want to imply that by choosing "atheist".
Are you also "agnostic" on the existence of the Little People?
mōdgethanc wrote:Do you know they don't exist?
God is just a little more prominent in people's lives than fairies, so it's not surprising there has been a great deal more thought about the subject and many more descriptors have been invented for people to summarize their beliefs. I thought I was perfectly clear that I wanted to stress that I'm an agnostic atheist, so I was mulling over whether "agnostic" might not be a better word for "I don't believe in God" since "atheist" might be taken to mean a gnostic stance. If I needed to clarify my beliefs about fairies, I might do the same thing.linguoboy wrote:mōdgethanc wrote:Do you know they don't exist?
I'm just trying to figure out how consistent you are in your statements of non-belief. I don't see a reason for making a distinction when a deity is involved that you wouldn't make elsewhere.
I don't ever see people wrestling with whether they are "afairistic" or just "agnostic". They just say "I don't believe in fairies" and leave it at that.
johnklepac wrote:Lur wrote:I never know what to make of the whole "agnostic" thing. I voted none and atheist.
TBH, neither do I. No one can really be 100% sure about anything, nor does it seem likely that anyone who's the tiniest bit educated on religion wouldn't have any opinion on whether it's true. IMO, everyone should just identify with the direction in which he or she leans.
Itikar wrote:Which kind of fairies are you talking about?
Tinker Bell or the spiritual entities from paganism?
Practically speaking, you don't. I don't know Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny don't exist, but I'm working from the belief they don't, because it's the simplest option. Same thing with Yahweh/Allah/Deus/Crystal Dragon Jesus.Do I have to "know" that something like that doesn't exist? Does that even make sense?
linguoboy wrote:One of my biggest beefs with Orthodox Christianity has always been its cosiness with the temporal authorities--particularly given how nasty some of these authorities have been. The Enlightenment put an end to that sort of illiberal closeness in the West, but sadly it never penetrated most Orthodox countries. There's no law on the books against "blasphemy" in Russia, but the Pussy Riot trial shows that there doesn't need to be: the judicial establishment will just twist the definition of other crimes ("hooliganism"--really?) in order to prosecute it anyway.
Still, there are occasionally odd throwbacks in Western Europe as well. Today I read a news story about a falling out between the government of Scotland, which wants to legalise same-sex marriage, and the Scottish Cardinal, who has announced that he refuses to negotiate with the Prime Minister one-on-one on the issue. My reaction to the news was: Why the hell is the cardinal even being asked his opinion? This is nothing to do with him. Civil marriage is the responsibility of the state and the state is under no obligation to consult with religious authorities on the matter. Has the Roman Catholic Church ever consulted with the Scottish government when it goes about defining religious marriage? This is the kind of bullshit that has moved me out of the "whatever you believe is fine" camp closer and closer to militant atheism.
yggdrasil wrote:As far as I understand you disagree with the court verdict concerning the Pussy Riot? So what should be the right decision then? Just tell 'em to behave properly and let 'em go?
linguoboy wrote:yggdrasil wrote:As far as I understand you disagree with the court verdict concerning the Pussy Riot? So what should be the right decision then? Just tell 'em to behave properly and let 'em go?
From your tone, it seems like you consider that a ludicrous alternative. May I ask why?
In my country, crimes which disturb public order but do no real harm are often dealt with by giving out a warning or, at most, a fine. Detention is only considered necessary if the offender is abusive toward the police (or fails to pay up). Was that the case here? Did Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina assault the officers who came to break up their performance?
Varislintu wrote:Heh, I recently saw a documentary on the Pussy Riot case. In it, I saw these Russian Orthodox men from some kind of Orthodox fan club. They had beards, but dressed a bit like bikers,and on their black shirts there were skulls and the text "Orthodoxy or death". They walked around carrying enormous crucifixes and other symbols. I couldn't decide whether to laugh, cry, or just be stunned.
They were saying how mortally offended their religious beliefs were by Pussy Riot, and how in the olden times, the girls would have been burned at the stake.
If I have to choose, my sympathies are with the ideology of the loud young women in colorful ski masks any day.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest