Agnosticism, as far as religion goes, is one of the few foundations that actually leads to ethical actions.

1/5/2007 5:34:20 PM

why do you guys enjoy arguing about definitions so much?

especially when what you think something means cannot be changed???

hahaha Sorry, I'll go back to chit chat now.

1/5/2007 5:50:56 PM

definitions are important. and misusing language can lead to stigmatizing large groups of people by those in power (see: agnostics wrong being labelled as athiests often).

1/5/2007 5:54:02 PM

Quote :

"Agnosticism, as far as religion goes, is one of the few foundations that actually leads to ethical actions."

I disagree completely. While I think that there is no need for religion in order for a person to feel the need to do and be good, I think that it at least serves as a foundation to do so. I mean, it's basically why religion exists. I'm not saying that religious people are more ethical than agnostic people on the whole--it would be effectively impossible to make any actual determination of this--but I'm saying that morals instilled in a person by religion are just as good as the same morals instilled by some other means. I mean, I got my moral guidance from my parents, and Sesame Street, and, you know, society, but that's no better than getting it from those things and church as well.

1/5/2007 7:54:56 PM

Everyones religious beliefs are wrong, except for my own.

1/5/2007 8:15:00 PM

Thank you for your insightful addition to the thread.

1/5/2007 8:21:09 PM

just stating what the majority of religious people think.

1/5/2007 8:25:40 PM

just stating what the majority of religious people think.

1/5/2007 10:13:31 PM

JESUS LOVES ME THIS I KNOW
'CAUSE THE BIBLE TELL ME SO

1/5/2007 10:49:39 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying that morals instilled in a person by religion are just as good as the same morals instilled by some other means."

I think the point he was trying to make is that agnostics do good things because they know it's the right thing to do opposed to some religious people who do good things because they are scared of ending up in hell. This was printed by the technician a few years back

"James McCarthy, an N.C. State junior in the Lifelong Education Program and a Catholic, has contrasting feelings about the influence religion has on morals. "If I didn't believe in God and wasn't afraid of what would happen to me when I die, I wouldn't think twice about lying, stealing, or hurting people in order to make myself successful.""

1/5/2007 10:58:33 PM

^James mcarthy sounds like a degenerate or an idiot. Lying, stealing, or hurting other is a quick way to get yourself fucked. That's why most people don't do that.




Actually, he just sounds brainwashed. Be a catholic....... OR ELSE (you'll be pretty much the same and have more fun fucking girls).

[Edited on January 6, 2007 at 1:01 AM. Reason : asd]

1/6/2007 12:59:41 AM

Quote :

"I'm saying that morals instilled in a person by religion are just as good as the same morals instilled by some other means."

I wouldn't disagree with that statement, but religious-based morals have the caveat of also making a person more manipulatable on a religious basis (this is the main reason why ID/creationism has gained some traction recently), where as agnostics or atheists as a group aren't so easily swayed.

1/6/2007 1:05:54 AM

Back to the atheist/agnostic distinction, I need to give a partial apology. I've been using my preferred online dictionary thefreedictionary.com's definition of atheist. That site, along with dictionary.com and MSN/Encarta, defines it as someone that does not believe in God. This definition encompasses all nonbelievers. However, Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge dictionary defines it as someone that believes that God does not exist. This definition excludes those that refuse to make a decision on the subject. Sorry for being adamant about the first definition. It looks like the dictionaries aren't consistent in anyone's favor.

And for those of you that still don't get the difference between "not believing A" and "Believing not A", look at it this way: I flip a coin right now. One guy believes it came up heads, another believes it came up tails, and a third just says there's no fucking way to know. Two of them don't believe that heads came up, but only one does believe it was tails. If theism is analogous to calling heads, which is atheism: calling tails or not calling heads? Depends on the dictionary.

1/6/2007 1:58:47 AM

Quote :

"It looks like the dictionaries aren't consistent in anyone's favor."

I'd think that sites like Princeton, Merriam-Webster, and Cambridge would have a little more clout.

1/6/2007 11:38:55 AM

Quote :

"James McCarthy, an N.C. State junior in the Lifelong Education Program and a Catholic, has contrasting feelings about the influence religion has on morals. "If I didn't believe in God and wasn't afraid of what would happen to me when I die, I wouldn't think twice about lying, stealing, or hurting people in order to make myself successful"

So outside of religion, there is no such thing as positive and negative behavior?

1/8/2007 3:50:15 PM

not according to many religious people. All positive actions are defined by God, and all negative actions or thoughts are simply the influence of Satan.

I feel sorry for the wife of a man who responds to the question "why don't you cheat on your wife" with the answer "because the bible tells me not to".

1/8/2007 4:18:25 PM

It leads to a paradox anyway.

If what is good is good because God commands it to be so, then God can't be regarded as good or bad (because the standard exists below him).

If there is a higher standard of good and evil that exists that is distinct from God (and thus above him) then God is subject to some other force and isn't quite God.

1/8/2007 4:28:04 PM

Quote :

"I'd think that sites like Princeton, Merriam-Webster, and Cambridge would have a little more clout."

*shrug* And other reputable dictionaries go the other way, like The American Heritage and the 1913 Webster's. But it doesn't really matter. All definitions in the English language are unofficial.

Quote :

"So outside of religion, there is no such thing as positive and negative behavior?"

I'm always saddened by people that actually believe that. I'm like "If you didn't believe in God, you wouldn't be able to tell that it's better to cure cancer than stab yourself with a fork?"

1/8/2007 4:42:01 PM

You would, but now you would not have a reason to not do negative things. At least that's how I interpreted the quote.

1/8/2007 9:43:22 PM

Of course you'd have a reason not to do negative things... they're negative!

1/8/2007 9:59:36 PM

http://ncst.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204609276

These people seem to lump them all together.

Quote :

"Atheist, Agnostic, and Non-Religious This group has 4,657 members"

I mean if you can ignore the problem of evil, ignore that many older religions had water to wine (as a means of recording the importance of a big tech advancement of being able to store fruit juice nutrients longer/throughout the winter), immaculate conception, sacrifices & resurrection for salvation, and all that jazz recorded in their history for demi gods long before yahweh’s kid came along and got the same stories tacked on, ignore the fact that a large portion of any given religious body doesn't follow its own principles... then at that point what’s the point of anyone caring about definitions.

1/8/2007 10:06:30 PM

^ No, we don't lump them together. It's more of a support group for the collective whole of nontheists, those who don't care, and those who think we can't determine god's existence or not.

Like Campus Crusade (except for that annoying evangelist bullshit they do) for everyone else. We didn't put it together to imply that the distinctions are meaningless.

I realize you referenced the bigger group, but the chapter we tried to start here, at least, wasn't trying to ignore the differences between the groups.

[Edited on January 8, 2007 at 10:28 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2007 10:24:02 PM