# Your religion?



## Barcelonic

Private poll so dont worry lol


----------



## Barcelonic

To whomever voted 'Other' - feel free to share your faith here. I'd like to know what I missed off the list.

Thanks


----------



## Eos_Machai

Atheist. But not a supporter of _new atheism._ I think that various religions throughout history have expressed many valuable truths and insights (of a different kind than those of science), not only bullshit.


----------



## Nekomata

Catholic, I suppose. Unsure really.


----------



## Protagoras

If you are an agnostic atheist, should you then pick 'agnostic' or 'atheist'?

*EDIT:* Oh, never mind, I saw there is an 'other' category...


----------



## Fear Itself

Protestant would be the correct term for me, but labels make religion even more complicated than necessary.


----------



## Barcelonic

Protagoras said:


> If you are an agnostic atheist, should you then pick 'agnostic' or 'atheist'?
> 
> *EDIT:* Oh, never mind, I saw there is an 'other' category...



If you are an "agnostic atheist" you are an agnostic, lol


----------



## Barcelonic

Fear Itself said:


> Protestant would be the correct term for me, but labels make religion even more complicated than necessary.


Couldn't agree more! 

There is a 20-limit on the polling. Plus If it were even possible to create a list which didn't cause offence to some or give feelings of exclusion to others, what a world it would be, eh?


----------



## Protagoras

Barcelonic said:


> If you are an "agnostic atheist" you are an agnostic, lol


Actually, that is not the whole truth. While it is true that you are an agnostic if you are an agnostic atheist, it is also true that you are an atheist if you are an agnostic atheist.


----------



## Barcelonic

Protagoras said:


> Actually, that is not the whole truth. While it is true that you are an agnostic if you are an agnostic atheist, it is also true that you are an atheist if you are an agnostic atheist.


OK now I'm intrigued. 

Before i presume too much, would you mind offering a brief description of an 'agnostic atheist'?

Thanks


----------



## Monsieur Melancholy

Zoroastrian? Isn't that what Freddie Mercury was?

By the way, you should have made it multiple options. I personally identify myself with two religions.


----------



## sloth

Wiccan ^_^


----------



## Protagoras

Barcelonic said:


> OK now I'm intrigued.
> 
> Before i presume too much, would you mind offering a brief description of an 'agnostic atheist'?
> 
> Thanks


An agnostic atheist is someone who accepts that there are no reasons for claiming to _know_ something about God's existence (which is an epistemological position), while also holding that he does not _believe_ in God's existence (which is a position with regard to one's beliefs). They are different from 'pure agnostics', if that is the best word to describe non-(a)theistic agnostics, because pure agnostics say that they do not believe either way _exactly because_ they cannot know whether God exists or not (since they do not want to believe something which they do not know). The agnostic atheist, on the other hand, holds that it may be reasonable not to believe in something even though you cannot be sure about it. They also differ from certain fellow atheists in that they do not claim to know that God does not exist. Agnosticism and atheism are not exclusive with regard to each other, because they are positions with regard to different problems or questions.


----------



## Barcelonic

sloth said:


> Wiccan ^_^


Thanks i did actually consider putting this one on the list, but I figured i'd get more stick putting it on that leaving it off lol so i opted against it sry 



Monsieur Melancholy said:


> Zoroastrian? Isn't that what Freddie Mercury was?
> 
> By the way, you should have made it multiple options. I personally identify myself with two religions.


Zoroastrianism is Persian i believe. Don't know about Freddie lol 

I can't agree i should have made it multiple options, but i appreciate your candour nonetheless! 



Protagoras said:


> An agnostic atheist is someone who accepts that there are no reasons for claiming to _know_ something about God's existence (which is an epistemological position), while also holding that he does not _believe_ in God's existence (which is a position with regard to one's beliefs). They are different from 'pure agnostics', if that is the best word to describe non-(a)theistic agnostics, because pure agnostics say that they do not believe either way _exactly because_ they cannot know whether God exists or not (since they do not want to believe something which they do not know). The agnostic atheist, on the other hand, holds that it may be reasonable not to believe in something even though you cannot be sure about it. They also differ from certain fellow atheists in that they do not claim to know that God does not exist. Agnosticism and atheism are not exclusive with regard to each other, because they are positions with regard to different problems or questions.


Well if the word atheist has been reinvented I'm not too sure I'd like the guy who made it happen lol.

Firstly, not all atheists claim to _know_ there is no God. Some are more diplomatic with such a word as 'know'.

Also, I won't argue the point with you but in my eyes I'm afraid the position you've just described is an agnostic one.

a) agnostic because there is no way to know either way
b) agnostic because there is strong reason to suggest no God

You basically describe B, although in fairness the position of B does seem precariously balanced between agnosticism & atheism. I don't care much for the overlap is all, nor do I see it as an 'agnostic atheist'.

But as I said, I won't argue that. If that is how you best characterise your beliefs that is, of course, fine.


----------



## Protagoras

Barcelonic said:


> Firstly, not all atheists claim to _know_ there is no God. Some are more diplomatic with such a word as 'know'.


And I never claimed otherwise.



Barcelonic said:


> Also, I won't argue the point with you but in my eyes I'm afraid the position you've just described is an agnostic one.


I would never deny that it is an agnostic position, but that does not exclude it from being an atheistic position.



Barcelonic said:


> a) agnostic because there is no way to know either way
> b) agnostic because there is strong reason to suggest no God
> 
> You basically describe B, although in fairness the position of B does seem precariously balanced between agnosticism & atheism. I don't care much for the overlap is all, nor do I see it as an 'agnostic atheist'.


No, agnostic atheists can also be agnostics because they think there is no way to know either way; in fact, most agnostic atheists are probably agnostic because of that reason. I have not described the latter position (which you dubbed 'B'), nor did I "basically describe" it.


----------



## Protagoras

Also, FYI:

Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not dislike Bertrand Russell, he was a fine logician. :/

Also, at least one host of The Atheist Experience has said to be an agnostic atheist, namely Matt Dillahunty. He explains it using the knowledge as justified true belief definition of knowledge and, thereby, is able to explain how knowledge is but a subset of beliefs. His explanation is not necessarily accepted by every agnostic atheist, though. I could provide you with a link to a recent episode if you want to hear his actual explanation.


----------



## Barcelonic

Protagoras said:


> And I never claimed otherwise.


Well then I'm afraid you'll need to be more specific when you refer to "_certain fellow atheists_".



Protagoras said:


> I have not described the latter position (which you dubbed 'B'), nor did I "basically describe" it.


Fair enough. Indeed I did; and indeed you didn't. I didn't read about it too deeply so Russell is safe for now lol, but check this out just as an example of how little I care for self-indulgent definitions (whether they be by revered men or not)... Asexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's like the music genres and subgenres and subsubgenres. Everyone says they hate labels but they don't rest until they are happy with one which fits them perfectly, lol


----------



## Protagoras

Barcelonic said:


> Well then I'm afraid you'll need to be more specific when you refer to "_certain fellow atheists_"


I meant those atheists who claim to know that God does not exist or, in other words, who subscribe to 'strong atheism'; who say that it is true that God does not exist. These strong atheists are indeed 'certain fellow atheists' to agnostic atheists, but 'certain fellow atheists' does not mean the same as '_all_ fellow atheists'.



Barcelonic said:


> Fair enough. Indeed I did; and indeed you didn't. I didn't read about it too deeply so Russell is safe for now lol, but check this out just as an example of how little I care for self-indulgent definitions (whether they be by revered men or not)... Asexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It's like the music genres and subgenres and subsubgenres. Everyone says they hate labels but they don't rest until they are happy with one which fits them perfectly, lol


Well, that is a personal preference for simplicity that I agree with in some instances, but I cannot say that I agree with it in the instance of agnostic atheism.


----------



## Barcelonic

Of course those who claim to know there is no God claim to know there is no God. 
Just as those who eat fruit eat fruit.



Protagoras said:


> An agnostic atheist is someone who....
> They also differ from certain fellow atheists in that they do not claim to know that God does not exist.





Barcelonic said:


> Firstly, not all atheists claim to _know_ there is no God. Some are more diplomatic with such a word as 'know'.





Protagoras said:


> And I never claimed otherwise.





Barcelonic said:


> Well then I'm afraid you'll need to be more specific when you refer to "_certain fellow atheists_".





Protagoras said:


> I meant those atheists who claim to know that God does not exist or, in other words, who subscribe to 'strong atheism'; who say that it is true that God does not exist. These strong atheists are indeed 'certain fellow atheists' to agnostic atheists, but 'certain fellow atheists' does mean the same as '_all_ fellow atheists'.


----------



## Protagoras

Protagoras said:


> [Agnostic atheists] also differ from certain fellow atheists in that they do not claim to know that God does not exist.





Barcelonic said:


> Firstly, not all atheists claim to _know_ there is no God.





Protagoras said:


> [...] I never claimed otherwise.





Protagoras said:


> [...] 'certain fellow atheists' does not mean the same as '_all_ fellow atheists'.


It was the "all atheists" as opposed to "certain fellow atheists" that I was elaborating on. Also, besides this obvious point, what did you not understand about the words "certain fellow atheists" if I define these as strong atheists? What do you want me to explain about it?

*EDIT:* Oh, I see where the confusion may have arisen: it should be 'certain fellow atheists' does NOT mean the same as '_all_ fellow atheists'. I'll change it immediately.

*EDIT 2:* Quite simply, the point is that we agree that not all atheists claim to know that God does not exist. Some bad wordings have led to confusion, I see. It should be 'all atheists' instead of 'all fellow atheists (excluding the atheist in question)' too, if we're very strict.


----------



## ForsakenMe

I love how there's so many Agnostics and Atheists here.


----------



## Barcelonic

In blue...




Protagoras said:


> No, I never claimed that I did not say that or that I would not say that, I merely said that it wasn't an issue for me at that time and that you made it into an issue. Saying this is quite different from saying that I do not subscribe to the view that "If A says X, A says X.", which is necessarily true.
> 
> 
> Let us recap here because as you will read on below it is in fact you are the one trying to recharacterise _me_...
> 
> YOU put forth a tautology
> I pointed it out
> YOU say it's not my point so why bring it up?
> I spend page after page ONLY trying to convince you it was fallacious and made no sense (the fruit analogy) - nothing more!
> (Which you did in fact deny, btw)
> 
> 
> Where do you read *a negation of the proposition* "Those who claim to know there is no God claim to know there is no God." in this quote? I even affirm it! I said that it was *not my point;* that it was not _the issue_ I was trying to discuss, but that is something else than saying that I did not agree with it. You are simply reading meanings into a text which are not evident from the text nor intended by me as the text's author. That is to say: you are putting words into my mouth.
> 
> This is where you are putting words in MY mouth...
> 
> The proposition was yours. I've *not once asked you* to negate the proposition! I've wanted you to accept that what you asserted was nonsensical, yes. But *why* would i ask you to negate something like that? It would be absurd!!
> 
> 
> That "Those who claim to know there is no God claim to know there is no God." is a proposition that is not a fallacious argument, a proposition that actually is not _even_ an argument but merely a proposition or at best a reiteration in the form of a proposition (since there is no conclusion that is different from the premise) and a proposition that is true under the law of non-contradiction, which applies. Mostly because its negation, which reads "It is not the case that 'Those who claim to know there is no God claim to know there is no God.'" is nonsensical, since you either claim it or do not claim it and cannot both claim it and not claim it at the same time. If "A says X" is true, then it cannot be said that A does _not_ say X.
> 
> _(I've addressed you further on this after this quote box...)_
> 
> Protagoras -- it appears you have a good grasp of logic so firstly I will accept that the word "fallacious" was perhaps not correct, on my part. But I must admit I'm beginning to get frustrated because if you understand the difference between a "fallacy" and a 'tautology' then WHY IN THE WORLD did you not just accept you made such an error and avoid ALL of this!?!? OR-- later, you could have corrected me and told me the word I was looking for was 'tautological' and yet you didn't. Indeed you might even have considered NOT *denying* it was so.



>>> From above....


Protagoras said:


> Also, the 'certain fellow atheists' *I meant to* refer to are these strong atheists; *this* is not tautological because it takes the form 'A=B' instead of 'A=A'".


So, another recap...

You put forth the tautology A=A
I try to highlight this and clearly you knew it was tautological
So you post the above - '_I meant to refer to_' and that 'this' _wouldn't be_ tautological.

Was I supposed to stop there? Was that how you concede a mistake? Seriously?

Person 1: "You just made a mistake"
Person 2: "Oh, well I *had meant* to say A instead of B, and then, you see, it *isn't *a mistake!"

Kudos!! 

All I actually want is for you to simply go, "oh actually i _did_ make the mistake you're on about - lol, what i had meant to say was..."

Instead you leap on the fact i'm using the word 'fallacy' when all along you knew this was always about A=A, meaning you knew your assertion was tautological the whole time.

As i said, kudos :frustrating:


----------



## Protagoras

Barcelonic said:


> You put forth the tautology A=A
> I try to highlight this and clearly you knew it was tautological
> So you post the above - '_I meant to refer to_' and that 'this' _wouldn't be_ tautological.


No, "strong atheists are people who claim to know that God does not exist" or any proposition among those lines is not tautological as 'A=A' is tautological, since you need to know that strong atheists are actually people who claim that, so it takes the form 'A=B'. If you would not know that John was the lover of Mary, then the proposition 'John is the lover of Mary.' is not tautological to you, the same applies here. Another example is 'The morning star is the evening star.', that both the morning star and the evening star refer to Venus does not mean that 'The morning star is the evening star.' will be recognized as a tautological proposition by everyone. I made no mistake, I just told you something that you already knew in the form 'A=B'; this is not fallacious. That you took it to be tautological just means that you are very familiar with the synonomy between 'strong atheists' and 'people who claim to know that God does not exist', but this familiarity does not make it necessarily tautological either. It is tautological in the weak sense, just as 'circles are round' is tautological yet *true*. Like I said, you can blame me for not really answering your question, but not for telling you something that is not true or that is logically invalid, which is what you want me to admit to having done.


----------



## Barcelonic

@_Protagoras_ Your tautology A=A was demonstrated in post #19. With a little humility on your part we could have ended this ridiculous discussion by post 23 or so...
http://personalitycafe.com/member-polls/146300-your-religion-2.html#post3718817

I've posted that link several times now. Please ensure you look at it because YOUR tautology was:

*"Those who claim to know there is no God claim to know there is no God"*  _*[ A = A ]*_

Answer me one question: is that tautological or not? 

Forget all of what you just posted as none of that is A=A, like YOUR assertion.


----------



## Sanskrit

The poll asks what do you "believe" in and as an atheist all I want to say is, "nothing". Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. The most natural state, base default where no bullshit is accepted as true and all claims are questioned and investigated, evaluated based on testable facts.

I am not really an agnostic since even if I don't know if there is a god, I hold no belief that there even can be a god, or could be a god. I know what people will try to argue to that. "But you need to BELIEVE that there is no possibility for god" is the common argument from ignorance and that is just failed logic, a weak stance claiming that unknown means a possibility. In reality it just means that it is not supported by any bit of knowledge available, nothing indicates such, therefore it is not a plausibility.
I do not have to argue that there is no Spiderman, because we all know it is a fictional character created by Stan Lee, same goes for God, maybe Stan Lee did not create God (he created many) but someone did, an idea that originated from human imagination, an outdated uneducated idea propagated only by ignorant masses that rather feel good about themselves by participating to group thinking than adhere to observable reality in which mature people operate.

Agnosticism is just a stance that you have not really spent time figuring things out enough to come to a definite conclusion, or that you prefer semantics over facts.



ForsakenMe said:


> I love how there's so many *a*gnostics and *a*theists here.


When surrounded by insanity, some sanity is welcome sight. I fully concur in your delight.


----------



## Protagoras

Barcelonic said:


> Your tautology A=A was demonstrated in post #19. With a little humility on your part we could have ended this ridiculous discussion by post 23 or so...
> http://personalitycafe.com/member-polls/146300-your-religion-2.html#post3718817


Yes, and exactly because "Those who claim to know there is no God claim to know there is no God." was NOT my original formulation, it is not exactly my proposition. It was my proposition in that it can be demonstrated to be true if my explanation is correct, but exactly because I did not write it down like that it cannot be said to be my formulation. You've said it yourself: you _demonstrated_ that it followed from my words, but exactly because you could not just quote me as saying that but needed to string together several quotes in order to demonstrate that I agreed with it, it was not my formulation. I agree with it, sure, but it was not my formulation. As to humility, the same could be said of you. Instead of saying "_Well, you did not quite specify it in the way I wanted you to. I understand that these people claim to know God does not exist, but I wanted to know... [insert what you wanted to know]_", you started claiming that I had made a fallacy where I had made none. Now you claim that I have used a tautology, which is true in some sense but not in the sense that 'A=A' is a tautology, since my original formulation did not have that logical form. Regardless, me saying 'A=A' would not be problematic either, so if you want me to claim that "Those who claim to know there is no God claim to know there is no God.", then I will do it right now for you. I commit myself to the notion that a thing is truly itself and not something else.

However, having said all that, I still do not understand what you actually wanted me to explain. My logic was valid, although my explanation was perhaps not as clear as you wanted it to be, but I cannot discern what your problem is. Do you not fully understand what it means to be an agnostic atheist? Do you think that being an agnostic atheist is impossible? What do you want me to clarify besides the logic that I have repeated, clarified and reiterated many times over in this thread?



Barcelonic said:


> Answer me one question: is that tautological or not?


It is tautological, but it is also not my original formulation, although it followed from what I said. Also, there is not that much wrong with me saying that A=A, even though it is valueless for our discussion, since we already agree that A=A and that we say what we say and not something else.


----------



## Roach

There is no 'Dudeism' so I chose 'Other'.


----------



## slender

@Barcelonic
They also differ from certain fellow atheists in that they do not claim to know that God does not exist_.
*aka, weak atheism or agnostic atheism. (the idea that i can't prove that god doesn't exist, but that i don't believe in god.)*
_not all atheists claim to _know there is no God__.
*correct, not all atheists claim to know. hence the separation of agnostic atheists, and Gnostic atheists.*
I never claimed otherwise.
*he didn't in the quote you put forth at least.
*you'll need to be more specific
_*alrighty then.*_
I meant those atheists who claim to know that God does not exist
*that's more specific. he is telling the difference between agnostic atheism (i don't believe but i can't disprove god) and Gnostic atheism (i don't believe and i can disprove gods existence). 
*_
what is the problem? there is no fallacy, he is saying when put simply, "those who eat fruit eat fruit." but, more specifically, he is saying "there are those who sometimes eat fruit and those who always eat fruit". simplified though, it is in fact "those who eat fruit eat fruit". but he is making the distinction.


----------



## snail

Protestant.

I think I have the most in common with Seventh-day Adventists, but there are a few things I disagree with.


----------



## Barcelonic

Protagoras said:


> Yes, and exactly because "Those who claim to know there is no God claim to know there is no God." was NOT my original formulation, it is not exactly my proposition.


My goodness man. 
Whose semantic now??

So let me rally this together for a minute... because YOU weren't the person who put your assertion together - as was done in post #19 - you did not assert it? Is this what you are saying?

I hope not, for if weasels could speak that is what one might say.


PS. You keep repeating... "I still don't know what you want me to explain..."
!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously dude you gotta start opening your eyes and reading my words: I have constantly refuted i want ANY kind of explanation from you; ANY kind of political debate etc etc... and that ALL i wanted was for you to cease your endless denial that tautology was an assertion of your own making.

At the very least I'd expect you to stop trying to promote the idea it was mine!
We have both adequately demonstrated that you know otherwise.


----------



## Northcrest

I chose atheists, even though I believe the more proper term for me is agnostic atheist.


----------



## Space Cat

I was surprised there is more Agnostic then Atheists... speaking of which, the closest philosophical mindset i identify with are Agnosticism and Buddhism. 
I don't fit in any labels as i find them too restrictive.
I am quite a spiritual but non religious person who is exploring my intuition where i don't worship anything but myself which isn't a belief or religion.


----------



## Vianna

I am not religius and I am not an atheist. I take the existence of God, or "higher power" as a posibility. If I should choose one religion, it would be budhism. I like its ideas, but I don't practice it actively.


----------



## countrygirl90

I'm not an atheist nor am I a die hard religious person .I respect and consider every religion of this world as equal and I'm a* Hindu* .I believe in and follow religion the same way I would a form of art, like great music ,pictures ,stories ,poetry etc .Like a source of learning about life ,how to be a good human being and fulfill my role and purpose in this life on earth.How to be intimate with our own selves through the teachings of religion and know the true meaning of love and happiness.I believe that is what religion and god really want us to do , rather than following the superficial customs and useless traditions made by some ancient bunch of idiots , that hinders the voice of humanity and charity inside us .


----------



## Protagoras

Barcelonic said:


> So let me rally this together for a minute... because YOU weren't the person who put your assertion together - as was done in post #19 - you did not assert it? Is this what you are saying?


Well, it is not that I did not assert it, it is that it was part of a slightly more complicated set of assertions that cannot be divorced from each other in the way you have attempted to do. Obviously, the claim "Those who claim to know there is no God claim to know there is no God." is a self-evidently true, tautological proposition. I would not have to tell you that in order for you to understand it, unless you did not understand the meaning of the words. I used the reiteration of "Those who claim to know there is no God." to clarify the distinctions between atheists who are agnostics and atheists who are _not_ agnostics, so it should be seen in that context. 

You would not judge a book by just one of the many sentences that are in it, would you?



Barcelonic said:


> At the very least I'd expect you to stop trying to promote the idea it was mine!
> We have both adequately demonstrated that you know otherwise.


You are thinking too absolutely here; "either it was my assertion or it was your assertion", is what you constantly seem to be saying. But, quite frankly, it cannot be understood in such simple terms. In some sense it was my assertion in that I agreed with it and in that it followed from my words, in another sense it was your assertion because you formulated it out of context.


----------



## shanmackie

Raised Catholic, converted to reform Judaism, which apparently is fairly common.


----------



## wanderingmo

I don't really know what I believe honestly...I grew up Lutheran in a Lutheran church with a Lutheran mother and Catholic father. They never pressured church and God too much, but I always felt as if something was off..or didn't fit right. Im 19 now and I just don't understand how there can be so many different beliefs in this world...who is right? and who are we to say that other religions are wrong? Why do we think ours is the correct way? Because that is how we were raised? What if no one was raised in any religion and once they hit a certain maturity level, they were able to choose what they want to believe in, it's not just pushed down their throats. I believe that something created us, but I don't believe in 'God'...there could be a higher form, just not sure as to what 'it' is. I don't really know what to call myself.


----------



## Away With Fairies

Monsieur Melancholy said:


> Zoroastrian? Isn't that what Freddie Mercury was?
> 
> By the way, you should have made it multiple options. I personally identify myself with two religions.


Freddie was born into a Zoroastrian family, though I'm not sure if he practiced the religion as such in his lifetime. And I'm pretty sure he didn't have a bunch of vultures pick at his bones in a Tower of Silence.:kitteh:


----------



## Barcelonic

Protagoras said:


> Well, it is not that I did not assert it, it is that it was part of a slightly more complicated set of assertions that _cannot be divorced from each other in the way you have attempted to do_.
> 
> _________________________________
> 
> In some sense it was my assertion in that I agreed with it and in that it followed from my words, in another sense it was your assertion because you formulated it out of context.


"In some sense" ?

So the underlined is what has been driving your persistence? Might I ask you something Protagoras...

Have you ever read any ancient Greek philosophy? I'm guessing you have, but I only ask because I myself am quite a big fan of dialogue. Do you know what I mean? When one philosopher asks another a short, simple question with an absolute answer; followed by another, and another, until finally all the premises build on one another to complete the point the leading phiolospher was trying to assert. I find it's the perfect method for any logician.

Here, Protagoras, I asked questions and you gave answers - the answers you gave could have been anything, but they were specifically the ones you did indeed give.

I think you'll find, if you look a bit closer, my "formulation" was very much _in_ context.


----------



## Tristan427

So many more fellow atheists than expected. Am proud.


----------



## Death Persuades

I recently started practicing Buddhism, so that's what I voted for.


----------



## VertigoH

You're so wonderful for including pantheism as an option.

I will bake a cake in your honour.


----------



## Elyasis

My religion is "meh". Or alternatively we are merely electrons in the body of the universe. It moves us, we move it.


----------



## Protagoras

Barcelonic said:


> Have you ever read any ancient Greek philosophy? I'm guessing you have, but I only ask because I myself am quite a big fan of dialogue. Do you know what I mean? When one philosopher asks another a short, simple question with an absolute answer; followed by another, and another, until finally all the premises build on one another to complete the point the leading phiolospher was trying to assert. I find it's the perfect method for any logician.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I think you'll find, if you look a bit closer, my "formulation" was very much _in_ context.


I think that is exactly the problem here; it is why you are thinking too absolutely. This simple yes/no structure that you propose to solve philosophical problems; it oversimplifies definitions to absolute concepts that cannot be maintained in ordinary language. What you attempt to do is to rip words out of their context without a loss of meaning; that is simply misguided. This is probably, as some later philosophers have noted, also why Socrates usually returned to the proposition that he did not know anything at all. Whereas some might say that it is admirable to claim that you know nothing when you are surrounded by people who are caught up in - what seem to be - nonsensical language-games, I think Socrates' method of dialogue was a sign of blindness to the multifaceted nature of language. When and how I utter words does change their sense, their function, their meaning, etc. A reiteration after an explanation is not just any tautology that adds nothing to your understanding; to claim that it can be understood as such is to forget the rest of the explanation and, therefore, the context.

"_Reading the Socratic dialogues one has the feeling: what a frightful waste of time! What’s the point of these arguments that prove nothing and clarify nothing?_" -Ludwig Wittgenstein

I have explained how it were atheists who do not believe in God, agnostic atheists (as a subset of atheists) who do not believe in God _and_ who do not claim to know that God does not exist, and gnostic atheists or strong atheists (as another subset of atheists) who do not believe in God _and_ who claim to know that God does not exist. Now, that I reiterated some of these formulations does not disprove, nor speak against, these simple definitions. There was no fallacy involved and the only mistake I could have made was that I may not have given the answers to your questions that _you_ would have liked me to give. So, unless you have something more substantial to say about what I did wrong, exactly, I do not feel that I owe you any more explanations (let alone apologies) with regard to this subject.


----------



## The Frozen One

I am an Agnostic Deist. That's the short answer. If you don't want details into the why, then stop here.


_*------------------Potentially a TL/DR post. You've been warned.-------------------------*_

I do not believe in a theistic god as I have found that the text vs the evidence doesn't line up. I do not claim that there is no god, but I do not see any tangible proof of one outside of the occasional odd thing that happens. As a deist, I think that if there is a god, it isn't interested in the day to day affairs of individuals. Or to put it a figurative context "Lions do not concern themselves with the opinions of sheep."

I can't prove there is a god, but I also can't prove there isn't one. I can only go with what evidence is before me. Until there is a definitive answer for how everything came to be via evidence then there is the possibility of both options. The difference is that there is supporting evidence for scientific theories and laws, but nothing other than ancient bronze age or earlier writings supporting a theistic or deistic god. This is supposed to be "evidence". 

However, if there was a god I have to ask this question. If you want mankind to worship you and you really exist, why not show yourself in a way that is real and tangible so that your existence can't be questioned? Sure, you can go by faith, but do you do all of the things in your life blindly without scrutinizing them at some point? If you really think about it, you generally don't. So why expect me to treat how I live my life any differently? 

Make no mistake, choosing what you believe governs how you live your life. If you believe that there is a transcendant being who will strike you down with lightning when you don't do what it tells you to, then you will live you life in accordance to what it wants, not necessarily what you want. From my perspective, if there is a "god" then it doesn't give a damn what I do. Otherwise I would have seen things that gave me reason to believe differently. That hasn't happened. 

As I can't disprove that there is no god, I am led to believe that if there is one then it is a deistic god. Not a god similar to what is preached in pulpits every Sunday. Based on evidence, I lean towards the idea that there is no god more than the idea of the existence of a god of any kind. I just can't rule it out. Therefore, my leaning is towards Agnostic Deism.


----------



## Barcelonic

Protagoras said:


> I think that is exactly the problem here; it is why you are thinking too absolutely. This simple yes/no structure that you propose to solve philosophical problems; it oversimplifies definitions to absolute concepts that cannot be maintained in ordinary language. What you attempt to do is to rip words out of their context without a loss of meaning; that is simply misguided. This is probably, as some later philosophers have noted, also why Socrates usually returned to the proposition that he did not know anything at all. Whereas some might say that it is admirable to claim that you know nothing when you are surrounded by people who are caught up in - what seem to be - nonsensical language-games, I think Socrates' method of dialogue was a sign of blindness to the multifaceted nature of language. When and how I utter words does change their sense, their function, their meaning, etc. A reiteration after an explanation is not just any tautology that adds nothing to your understanding; to claim that it can be understood as such is to forget the rest of the explanation and, therefore, the context.
> 
> "_Reading the Socratic dialogues one has the feeling: what a frightful waste of time! What’s the point of these arguments that prove nothing and clarify nothing?_" -Ludwig Wittgenstein
> 
> I have explained how it were atheists who do not believe in God, agnostic atheists (as a subset of atheists) who do not believe in God _and_ who do not claim to know that God does not exist, and gnostic atheists or strong atheists (as another subset of atheists) who do not believe in God _and_ who claim to know that God does not exist. Now, that I reiterated some of these formulations does not disprove, nor speak against, these simple definitions. There was no fallacy involved and the only mistake I could have made was that I may not have given the answers to your questions that _you_ would have liked me to give. So, unless you have something more substantial to say about what I did wrong, exactly, I do not feel that I owe you any more explanations (let alone apologies) with regard to this subject.


You are rehashing things I've already addressed; you've discussed agnostic atheism at length and I don't see why you insist this is in any way related to what I have been discussing here ??
The fact is there are 7 pages of this thread with your name on it Protagoras, simply because you are not prepared to accept you 'misspoke' and made a small blunder of logic.

Short version: please quote post 19 and explain why you feel it is out of context.....
http://personalitycafe.com/member-polls/146300-your-religion-2.html#post3718817

Long version: stop going on about what you HAD MEANT to say - you are well aware I've been under no delusion as to what it is we are discussing. Quite frankly its difficult not to see this as a juvenile attempt to reframe the issue, and you persist at it!


On page 2 !! ...

I ask you what an agnostic atheist is.

You describe them as differing from "certain fellow atheists in that they do not claim to know that God does not exist."

Then I asked you a simple question.... "_which group do you mean by "certain fellow atheists"_". You answered, "those who claim to know there is no God".

So Protagoras - post#19? Tell me this is "out of context"!!!


PS. As for dialogue as a method your personal belief that this most pure form of logic in practice is not ideal is noted, but irrelevant. The fact is the method had nothing to do with Socrates' distinction of truth; it is the most effective way for two people to engage in objective thought and practice philosophy; and _even if_ you don't value it yourself that says nothing of using it here - where I maintain post 19 was a perfect example of this process working to full effect.

A journalist takes things out of context - so does a lawyer and a cop. I have no such agenda.... so would you please explain to me how any of what I framed in post 19 was out of context, even slightly?!?


----------



## Protagoras

Barcelonic said:


> You describe them as differing from "certain fellow atheists in that they do not claim to know that God does not exist."
> 
> Then I asked you a simple question.... "_which group do you mean by "certain fellow atheists"_". You answered, "those who claim to know there is no God".


No, I said this were strong atheists, who indeed do claim to know that God does not exist. I did not discuss apatheists (some of which also claim to know that there is no God; "I do not care if there is a God and I can live without him, therefore he does not exist.", which is a ridiculous position, but there you have it) or any other atheists, although I could have differentiated them from agnostic atheists as well. But I specifially chose to address those people who claim not to believe in God, claim to know that there is no God and claim nothing more than that. And that is why it is out of context.


----------



## Barcelonic

Protagoras said:


> No, I said this were strong atheists, who indeed do claim to know that God does not exist. I did not discuss apatheists (some of which also claim to know that there is no God; "I do not care if there is a God and I can live without him, therefore he does not exist.", which is a ridiculous position, but there you have it) or any other atheists, although I could have differentiated them from agnostic atheists as well. But I specifially chose to address those people who claim not to believe in God, claim to know that there is no God and claim nothing more than that. And that is why it is out of context.


 @Protagoras 

I asked you if you could be "more specific" when referring to "certain fellow atheists"

YOU specified "those who claim to know there is no God"
I then 'formulated' the assertion in a dialogue in post #19.

Protogoras, was there a tautology or not?

If so, then whose assertion was it?

How can you plausibly say that post #19 has taken your words out of context? Your answer is not an answer; I have underlined the falsehood in your post.

You actually specified just "those who claim to know there is no God". Your did not claim:
'Those who don't believe in God' or any other groups for that matter; your specification was clear - you replied "those who claim to know there is no God"

So please try once more to assert now that I have taken your words out of context. I find the notion insulting - particularly when I have done all the necessary 'legwork' involved to demonstrate otherwise and had done so by the SECOND page of this mess you've created.


----------



## Protagoras

Barcelonic said:


> I asked you if you could be "more specific" when referring to "certain fellow atheists"
> 
> YOU specified "those who claim to know there is no God"
> I then 'formulated' the assertion in a dialogue in post #19.


Not precisely. Here are my actual words:



Protagoras said:


> I meant those atheists who claim to know that God does not exist or, in other words, who subscribe to 'strong atheism'; who say that it is true that God does not exist. These strong atheists are indeed 'certain fellow atheists' to agnostic atheists, but 'certain fellow atheists' does not mean the same as '_all_ fellow atheists'..


This reads simply as: "Those who claim to know that God does not exist _or_ those who subscribe to 'strong atheism', _and_ those who say that it is true that God does not exist." and I also specified that this were NOT *all* other atheists. You masterfully reduced this to "Those who claim to know that there is no God."; simply ignoring (at least) one complete disjunct and one complete conjunct. So much for valuing logic on your part.

This also renders the following words:



Barcelonic said:


> You actually specified just "those who claim to know there is no God". Your did not claim:
> 'Those who don't believe in God' or any other groups for that matter; your specification was clear - you replied "those who claim to know there is no God".


False. It was out of context; you forgot relevant clauses.


----------



## Dragearen

Raised Episcopal (very similar to Catholic), but I have a large amount of influence from Buddhism (especially Zen and Theravada), Taoism, Gnosticism, and Huna.


----------



## Barcelonic

Protagoras said:


> Not precisely. Here are my actual words:
> 
> _______________________
> 
> This reads simply as: "Those who claim to know that God does not exist _or_ those who subscribe to 'strong atheism', _and_ those who say that it is true that God does not exist." and I also specified that this were NOT *all* other atheists. You masterfully reduced this to "Those who claim to know that there is no God."; simply ignoring (at least) one complete disjunct and one complete conjunct. So much for valuing logic on your part.
> 
> _________________
> 
> It was out of context; you forgot relevant clauses.


Erm thanks for proving my point i guess but doing so unknowingly wasn't what I was hoping for.
I laughed when I read 'not precisely', because really it should have been 'precisely' lol.


Yes I "masterfully reduced" 'those who claim to know that God doesn't exist" into 'those who claim to know there is no God'. Hmm.... am i missing something here?? Because from where I'm sitting it doesn't really look like anything has been reduced at all.
And it wouldnt take a 'masterful' attempt to reduce "God doesn't exist" to "no God" - that's called paraphrasing.

Let me just see if i can get this straight? Are you now suggesting my failure to quote that _verbatim_, and phrase "..God doesn't exist" as "..no God", is a 'masterful reduction' of your words, and that it takes what you said "out of context" ?

Or, are you suggesting you gave more than one example and i focused on one, because I see only one: "This reads simply as..." followed by THREE groups which are all different ways of saying ONE thing.

Which of these points is yours exactly? Do you not think it may say something about the points you've been trying to make that it isn't so easy to articulate them? Is it possible you are stretching now and aren't prepared to concede what should be a simple, meaningless error out of some misguided principle?

You've surely learned by now that if I were to point to the sun in the sky and declare its presence, and you denied that, I would be content to debate that until the sun went down? Unlike many people, I would not give up on a believer of a flat earth either - they simply must abandon something when it is thoroughly illogical.

I KNOW that you did not MEAN to imply what it was you said. You are clearly too smart to purposefully IMPLY a tautology of any kind. But for as long as you continue to deny that post #19 was anything other than factual & valid without adequately demonstrating why (post 19 isn't exactly very long either), I shall not simply walk away from what I perceive to be a quite ridiculous situation.


----------



## Protagoras

Barcelonic said:


> Yes I "masterfully reduced" 'those who claim to know that God doesn't exist" into 'those who claim to know there is no God'. Hmm.... am i missing something here?? Because from where I'm sitting it doesn't really look like anything has been reduced at all.
> And it wouldnt take a 'masterful' attempt to reduce "God doesn't exist" to "no God" - that's called paraphrasing.


Well, if you admit to having paraphrased, then you admit that is was not my claim but your understanding of my claim that you shared. There is nothing wrong with that, but it means that you cannot claim that it was my assertion anymore. Also, you cannot deny that you left out "_...or those who subscribe to 'strong atheism', and those who say that it is true that God does not exist._", so you did reduce my words (which is exactly why it is a paraphrase). Now, your claim here is, of course, that you were correct in reducing it like this. However, saying that it is *true* that God does not exist _is_ something different from saying that you *know* that God does not exist in a very strict sense. I do not want to get into an epistemological or semantic discussion about the meaning of the verb "to know", but there are definitely positions with regard to such a discussion that are relevant here. Take the definition of knowledge as _justified true belief_, for example. According to this definition, it is possible for me to say that it is true that God does not exist, without saying that I know that God does not exist (for example, if it is not justified to say that God does not exist). And if you have a definition of knowledge that excludes the truth of knowledge as a prerequisite for it being knowledge, then you could very easily say that you know that God does not exist without it being true that he does not exist. In other words, my conjunction made a distinction that is left out in your reduction. Strong atheists are people who claim that there are no deities at all, so this could be taken as either a position regarding *knowledge* about God's non-existence, which is what I take it to be in (at least) most cases, or regarding the *truth* of God's non-existence, which is exotic but worth noting now that I have to make the distinction explicit.



Barcelonic said:


> Let me just see if i can get this straight? Are you now suggesting my failure to quote that _verbatim_, and phrase "..God doesn't exist" as "..no God", is a 'masterful reduction' of your words, and that it takes what you said "out of context" ?


No, that is not necessarily what I am saying here, although that may be seen as a possible cause for you taking me out of context. However, I leave this up for you to judge.



Barcelonic said:


> Or, are you suggesting you gave more than one example and i focused on one, because I see only one: "This reads simply as..." followed by THREE groups which are all different ways of saying ONE thing.
> 
> Which of these points is yours exactly? Do you not think it may say something about the points you've been trying to make that it isn't so easy to articulate them? Is it possible you are stretching now and aren't prepared to concede what should be a simple, meaningless error out of some misguided principle?


See explanation above.



Barcelonic said:


> You've surely learned by now that if I were to point to the sun in the sky and declare its presence, and you denied that, I would be content to debate that until the sun went down? Unlike many people, I would not give up on a believer of a flat earth either - they simply must abandon something when it is thoroughly illogical.


Good for you.



Barcelonic said:


> I KNOW that you did not MEAN to imply what it was you said. You are clearly too smart to purposefully IMPLY a tautology of any kind. But for as long as you continue to deny that post #19 was anything other than factual & valid without adequately demonstrating why (post 19 isn't exactly very long either), I shall not simply walk away from what I perceive to be a quite ridiculous situation.


I think I gave a lot of answers all explaining some aspects of the meaning of my words. Now, I even explained the difference between my clauses involving "knowledge of God's non-existence" and "the truth of God's non-existence", which seemed too trivial to explain before, but I am sure that it is relevant with regard to your accusations as you have presented them in your last post. I hardly think I should do more than this and I would advice you to let this rest, since you really did make a reduction that simplified the meaning of my words. I think I have explained that by now... And, hopefully, you understand this after so many pages of discussion, but feel free to continue if you are sure of your case.


----------



## Barcelonic

in blue......



Protagoras said:


> Well, if you admit to having paraphrased, then you admit that is was not my claim but your understanding of my claim that you shared. There is nothing wrong with that, but it means that you cannot claim that it was my assertion anymore.
> 
> I will take that then as a firm denial that you did not assert the tautology. Might i ask if you think I am lying?
> 
> Indeed I admit as much lol - that I wrote "there is no God" instead of "God doesn't exist", and unlike you I've conceded a great deal thus far, although I do believe my post was in fact asking you how/why there is ANY distinction between the two.
> 
> Here's an example of a paraphrase for you:
> 
> _"That car is black"
> "That's a black car"_
> 
> So.... you are now saying quite clearly that if I were to assert "That car is black", then any claim that I have asserted that's a black car would be incorrect, somehow??
> 
> Even smeantics are supposed to make logical sense but those two things are EXACTLY the same (once again, you seem unable to see two identical statements) - please make that distinction because without it you cannot say that I can't claim you asserted a tautology.
> 
> 
> Also, you cannot deny that you left out "_...or those who subscribe to 'strong atheism', and those who say that it is true that God does not exist._", so you did reduce my words (which is exactly why it is a paraphrase).
> 
> I addressed this in my post - seriously are you even reading them? THOSE ARE THE SAME THING:::::::
> 
> Look...
> 
> "I claim to know there is no God"
> "I claim to have knowledge of the non-existence of God"
> "I subscribe to 'strong atheism'"
> "I say it is true God does not exist"
> 
> I could go on with meaningless paraphrasing all day but the four above statements DO NOT in any way represent four different groups of atheists ,or even four different positions. They are exactly the same!
> 
> 
> Now, your claim here is, of course, that you were correct in reducing it like this.
> 
> Lying about me like this is unwise and I'd be careful you do not force yourself into trolling this thread, for if you do so I shall not hesitate to report you.
> 
> You know all too well I said the complete opposite!!
> 
> 
> However, saying that it is *true* that God does not exist _is_ something different from saying that you *know* that God does not exist in a very strict sense.
> 
> Wow with that kind of logic you're starting to sound more like me. Indeed what you say here is true, although again I'm baffled how you could think I said otherwise. These are effectively the points I am trying to put to you!
> 
> The 3 groups you described were ALL subjective statements!! They were all the EXACT same thing paraphrased. Not ONE of them was a statement of objective fact!
> 
> I do not want to get into an epistemological or semantic discussion about the meaning of the verb "to know",
> 
> One wouldn't think it necessary, no
> Although here i am seven-eight pages after a simple tautology laid out bare and you still are incapable of seeing it - or somehow think my short, succinct questions did something to take the words out of context, yet still won't explain HOW?
> 
> Strong atheists are people who claim that there are no deities at all, so this could be taken as either a position regarding *knowledge* about God's non-existence, which is what I take it to be in (at least) most cases
> 
> So you admit that that IS just another way of saying the other two things. You said the same thing three times in different ways and now you think this discussion is leaning towards 'truth' and 'knowledge' - IT IS NOT!
> You can try to change this into whatever you wish but you are misinterpeting me and/or lying about me.
> You would never continuously say "Those who claim to know there is no God claim to know there is no God"
> Okay - i know this. I'm not insinuating you are an idiot, but why in the world can't you just say "oops, thats not what i meant, but indeed you aren't wrong - it WAS said."
> Do you think we've not all made similar mistakes. Myself, i suffer from cognitive impairments and so things like this happen to me all the time, but I'm nowhere near as stubborn about it. If I were then I fear I'd spend my whole days engaged in such meaningless discussion with people who should be friends but turn out to be enemies.
> 
> 
> No, that is not necessarily what I am saying here, although that may be seen as a possible cause for you taking me out of context. However, I leave this up for you to judge.
> 
> Well what is it then? Don't just say that without explaining HOW you were taken "out of context" - this was YOUR accusation so do I _really_ need to ask why a third time?!?
> 
> 
> 
> See explanation above.
> 
> I'm guessing by this you refer to your attempt to seperate those three subjective statements so that at least one can be objective? Right? So then you have means to accuse me of taking your words out of context? I've addressed this so no need to comment further here - see explanation above
> 
> 
> Good for you.
> 
> Erm, thanks? I'm guessing I need to be less subtle with you in future
> 
> 
> I think I gave a lot of answers all explaining some aspects of the meaning of my words. Now, I even explained the difference between my clauses involving "knowledge of God's non-existence" and "the truth of God's non-existence", which seemed too trivial to explain before, but I am sure that it is relevant with regard to your accusations as you have presented them in your last post. I hardly think I should do more than this and I would advice you to let this rest, since you really did make a reduction that simplified the meaning of my words.
> 
> So you can say that I "really did make a reduction" and then expect me to accept your lies and walk away? That is what it seems like you are asking here or expecting - ??
> 
> How dare you?
> 
> Thus far, you have:
> 
> -withheld the fact you knew post nineteen was a 'tautology' and not a 'fallacy'
> -refused the validity of the all-important post #19, irrespective of what you had _meant_ to write
> -implied the tautology was MINE!
> -accused me of taking your words out of context
> -conceded not a thing
> -falsely claimed that I have confessed to the so-called "masterful reduction" - an outright lie!
> 
> Do you really think that using the word 'really' prove your case. Because although it seems like you think you've already done so, I've asked on numerous occasions for you to quote yourself and offer valid explanations. If you don't think I have understood your explanation but that it IS valid, then QUOTE it, like I've been asking you to do, and/or highlight or explain the reasoning again. After all, that is what I have now been doing for seven pages thanks to you!



So I thank you for your confession that you have been trolling this thread and nothing more need be said on the matter.
_(Oh sorry i ended that here a bit like you did in your last post - i didnt mean to steal that i swear)_


----------



## Protagoras

Barcelonic said:


> I addressed this in my post - seriously are you even reading them? THOSE ARE THE SAME THING:::::::
> 
> Look...
> 
> "I claim to know there is no God"
> "I claim to have knowledge of the non-existence of God"
> "I subscribe to 'strong atheism'"
> "I say it is true God does not exist"
> 
> I could go on with meaningless paraphrasing all day but the four above statements DO NOT in any way represent four different groups of atheists ,or even four different positions. They are exactly the same!


Not necessarily. They may have very different meanings and they may even be uttered by very different groups of people, as I explained... This depends on your definitions, but it is definitely not as clear-cut as you seem to think it is.



Protagoras said:


> Also, you cannot deny that you left out "_...or those who subscribe to 'strong atheism', and those who say that it is true that God does not exist._", so you did reduce my words (which is exactly why it is a paraphrase). Now, your claim here is, of course, that you were correct in reducing it like this. However, saying that it is *true* that God does not exist _is_ something different from saying that you *know* that God does not exist in a very strict sense. I do not want to get into an epistemological or semantic discussion about the meaning of the verb "to know", but there are definitely positions with regard to such a discussion that are relevant here. Take the definition of knowledge as _justified true belief_, for example. According to this definition, it is possible for me to say that it is true that God does not exist, without saying that I know that God does not exist (for example, if it is not justified to say that God does not exist). And if you have a definition of knowledge that excludes the truth of knowledge as a prerequisite for it being knowledge, then you could very easily say that you know that God does not exist without it being true that he does not exist. In other words, my conjunction made a distinction that is left out in your reduction. Strong atheists are people who claim that there are no deities at all, so this could be taken as either a position regarding *knowledge* about God's non-existence, which is what I take it to be in (at least) most cases, or regarding the *truth* of God's non-existence, which is exotic but worth noting now that I have to make the distinction explicit.


So, they could also have very different meanings; statements concerning "knowledge", statements concerning "truth", etc. Q.E.D. 

And your ridiculous attempt to say that they are the same because none of them are statements of objective fact hardly changes that they are different... 

Why are you trying to deny the logic of complex sentences that consist of several atomic sentences? Why do you insist that this can be reduced to but *one* atomic sentence, whereas I elaborated on how the meanings of the constituent atomic sentences differed? 

According to your logic, every subjective statement would be the same, I guess. So, whether I say "I believe it rains outside." or "I believe it rains outside and I know it is Wednesday." or "I hate comedy films." would not matter, then? These statements all mean the same? Who are you kidding? Also, it is highly disputable whether a proper claim to knowledge is a subjective claim; whether that is the case depends entirely on your epistemological position. Not that it matters, since I only meant to refer to the people who made these claims; not to the claims themselves. Therefore, it only matters that these claims can be _thought_ to have different meanings, even if they in fact have the same meaning. I have showed how people can _think_ that the assertion that you know something has a different meaning than the assertion that something is true.

Now, I explained myself many times over; I made distinctions, I tried to answer your questions. But you insist on me using a tautology and *nothing but* a tautology, which would not even be very problematic *if* I really did use it like that, even though I have demonstrated that the complexity of my actual assertion disagrees with your accusations. And, really, it seems as though I am not getting through to you. Now, you are even denying the basic logic of sentences that consist of more than one atomic sentence. And you are making semantic claims that are simply not justified for as fas as I can see. 

I am sorry, but I think I can only agree to disagree here. If you cannot even agree with me about the logic of this matter, which I thought would be evident, then I really do not see how we can have a meaningful exchange at all. I hope that you can appreciate some of my points in the future, but if you find yourself completely unsatisfied with my explanations, then I cannot do much more than tell you that I am sorry that I could not live up to your standards (whatever they may be). You seem like a nice guy, but that is no basis for me to agree with you. I am sorry.


----------



## Protagoras

@Barcelonic:

Let me just simplify this, in order that you will (perhaps) understand what I am trying to say.

Let's say that I make the following proposition:

"There are people who like Mary and there are people who like Johanna."

Two groups of people are described; the group of people who like Mary and the group of people who like Johanna. Also, there exists only one Mary and one Johanna.

Now, the following proposition may be true, but we are not certain; we are still debating this:

"Mary is Johanna."

Would we, under these conditions, be certain that the two descriptions of groups of people in the first proposition refer to the exact same group of people; even if Mary really is Johanna? Remember that not all people agree that Mary is Johanna! Some people may not even have heard the proposition that Mary is, in fact, Johanna and some people may also never have contemplated that Mary could be Johanna. If you understand this logic, then perhaps you will understand why your point about subjective claims versus claims of objective fact is irrelevant.


----------



## Barcelonic

blue....



Protagoras said:


> Not necessarily. They may have very different meanings and they may even be uttered by very different groups of people, as I explained... This depends on your definitions, but it is definitely not as clear-cut as you seem to think it is.
> 
> Really? Post #91 (top of page) wasn't clear-cut for you? ....
> 
> _"this reads simply as: "*Those who claim to know that God does not exist* or those who subscribe to 'strong atheism', and those who say that it is true that God does not exist." and I also specified that this were NOT *all* other atheists...
> ...............
> You masterfully reduced this to "*Those who claim to know that there is no God*._"
> 
> So here is what you are actually saying in post #91...
> 
> 'I said "_Those who claim to know that God does not exist_" and you masterfully reduced this to "_Those who claim to know that there is no God_"
> 
> If there is any relevant difference here you are yet to explain it.
> 
> 
> And your ridiculous attempt to say that they are the same because none of them are statements of objective fact hardly changes that they are different...
> 
> Lol - once again look at the four examples i recently posted for you.
> 
> They are all saying - "I *claim* to *know*"
> 
> Not that the 'claim' is even required, but this statement quite clearly expresses the person *believes* to know the absolute truth, not that they *do*.
> 
> 
> *Why do you insist that this can be reduced*
> 
> I don't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP saying that I do, I warned you about this VERY LIE in my last post so clearly you are intentionally trying to provoke me by puttings whatever words you want me to say into my mouth.
> Cease this at once!!!!
> 
> YOU accused ME of "reducing" what you said. I said i was 'paraphrasing' and if you don't know the difference tell me now so I can have a real conversation with someone who doesn't think they are infallible.
> 
> Literally all I did with the paraphrase in question was change "...that there is no God" -to- "...that God does not exist". THAT is PARAPHRASING and is not REDUCING anything!! What exactly did i take away from that segment????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to your logic, every subjective statement would be the same, I guess. So, whether I say "I believe it rains outside." or "I believe it rains outside and I know it is Wednesday." or "I hate comedy films." would not matter, then? These statements all mean the same? Who are you kidding?
> 
> A second lie! A new one. A troll will never say he's trolling i suppose so should i just report you now or wait for you to tell a third lie about me?!? You've demonstrated your not an idiot so what might I ask, is this about? You are now implying I am an idiot?
> 
> 
> Now, I explained myself many times over; I made distinctions, I tried to answer your questions. But you insist on me using a tautology and *nothing but* a tautology
> 
> WHICH THREAD ARE YOU READING - SERIOUSLY?!? "Nothing but" ? "Nothing but" ?
> *Quote* me please or stop lying...........
> 
> ALL i've wanted is for you to accept you made a tautological error - NOTHING more and you know that all too well.
> 
> , which would not even be very problematic *if* I really did use it like that, even though I have demonstrated that the complexity of my actual assertion disagrees with your accusations.
> 
> *QUOTE* please....... You HAVE NOT demonstrated a thing. Why are you sooooo reluctant to quote or multi-quote yourself???
> 
> 
> 
> And, really, it seems as though I am not getting through to you. Now, you are even denying the basic logic of sentences that consist of more than one atomic sentence. And you are making semantic claims that are simply not justified for as fas as I can see.
> 
> Wow you are good. Truly, manipulation is an art.
> 
> Well then you just sit safe in the knowledge that nobody besides the two of us has read eight pages of your nonsense. If it is easier for you to have such an inane discussion about something so CONCLUSIVELY explained in ONE post - post #19, than to concede a single error then you have my sympathies.
> 
> You might have tried, instead, accusing me of framing the initial questions in a way so as to coax those responses from you. That would have been a logical accusation, although incorrect. After all, I don't know you and couldn't possibly have known your response would complete a tautology.
> 
> You would have pointed it out also. What you asserted made no sense - simply because of an error, not because your _opinions_ don't make sense. And yet you've attempted to make this personal on numerous occasions and are beginning to troll.
> 
> As i said, quote if you want a discussion. If you want a popularity contest by painting me as the bad guy go into politics and stay out of logic!
> 
> I am sorry, but I think I can only agree to disagree here. If you cannot even agree with me about *the logic of this matter, which I thought would be evident*, then I really do not see how we can have a *meaningful exchange* at all. I hope that you can appreciate some of my points in the future, but if you find yourself completely unsatisfied with my *explanations*, then I cannot do much more than tell you that I am sorry that I could not live up to your standards (whatever they may be). You seem like a nice guy, but that is no basis for me to agree with you. I am sorry.
> 
> What on Earth are you talking about now?
> 
> Your "explanations" and nothing more than recantations without concession - it's like a court issuing a wrongly-convicted prisoner his release on the condition they drop all future appeals for their innocence. Here the court is saying... "We will let you go, but refuse to accept our culpability"
> 
> Did you at any point think this discussion has or was supposed to be "meaningful"? I have been dealing with your nonsense for pages now because apparently you don't make mistakes and i need to learn that. There is no meaning here - it is a waste of time for both of us and this is what I've been trying to get across for ages. But as I said earlier (the bit you mocked in your past post), I will debate the flat-Earther until the sun goes down.
> 
> Indeed it would be rather confusing were one to find oneself in a situation whereby the other person in the conversation seemed to be denying their own words (which are already posted on the INTERNET for all to see), yet here we are.
> Believe me when I say I was as baffled as you now claim to be when I first realised YOU were unable to see such basic logic - hence, this thread (pages 2- )



Discuss logic. 

I'd love it.

Don't lie though.

And don't say that you've given "explanations" when you've been wholly unwilling to elaborate on any of the things you've said unclearly. As I said before, if your explanations are not being understood then perhaps it is not the reader who does not understand logic all too well.

I have made concessions
i've multi-quoted (post 19 itself was a PURE multi-QUOTE!)
I've divided your posts to address individual points moreso than you've done with mine

I have done EVERYTHING possible to have a logical discussion here but now that I know you are simply being stubborn and not simply a toddler using their father's computer, I must say I care a lot less now about you and whether or not you understand logic.

Oh, and I _am_ a nice guy - but I've hardly been too nice in here (i at least began to be nice but page after page went by....) have I 

Clearly you've had enough of trying to divert attention away from your error with all these insinuations and accusations. Indeed I hope you have. You are beyond saving. Logic loses here today.


----------



## Barcelonic

Protagoras said:


> @_Barcelonic_:
> 
> Let me just simplify this, in order that you will (perhaps) understand what I am trying to say.
> 
> Let's say that I make the following proposition:
> 
> "There are people who like Mary and there are people who like Johanna."
> 
> Two groups of people are described; the group of people who like Mary and the group of people who like Johanna. Also, there exists only one Mary and one Johanna.
> 
> Now, the following proposition may be true, but we are not certain; we are still debating this:
> 
> "Mary is Johanna."
> 
> Would we, under these conditions, be certain that the two descriptions of groups of people in the first proposition refer to the exact same group of people; even if Mary really is Johanna? Remember that not all people agree that Mary is Johanna! Some people may not even have heard the proposition that Mary is, in fact, Johanna and some people may also never have contemplated that Mary could be Johanna. If you understand this logic, then perhaps you will understand why your point about subjective claims versus claims of objective fact is irrelevant.


What is the other group then Protagoras???
I have been asking and you've not been saying?

There is ONE grroup you mentioned.... "Those who claim to know there is no God"

They are NOT a different group from "Those who say God doesn't exist" or "Those who would profess to know of God's non-existence.

Do YOU see MY point?? 

You can't simply paraphrase one group in such a way as to create several.

There has always been one. 

In reference to your refreshing analogy there is no synonym for 'like' but for the sake of the point......

"There are people who like Mary"
"There are people who find Mary amicable"
"There are people who enjoy Mary's company."

There is little i can do about there being no synonym for the word 'like', so of course the above examples are not identical in statement, but I highlight this to show how Johanna was never a part of the picture.

You only spoke of ONE group and then paraphrased it twice!

Mary, Mary & Mary


----------



## Chaerephon

This is the closest thing to describing my "religion."
Possibilianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Protagoras

@Barcelonic:

Okay, let's try another approach, I am going to give you an elaboration... I will not counter you point-for-point, since many of your points will probably stop being problematic for you if I explain this properly and if you are willing to follow the arguments that I lay out. Feel free to bring your points up again if you feel I have not answered them adequately. However, if this does not work to bring understanding or if you are going to deny everything, then I will stop trying altogether (which I think would be the most sensible thing for me to do).

So, let' return to your actual post: http://personalitycafe.com/member-polls/146300-your-religion-2.html#post3718817

You basically quoted me as saying:

"[Agnostic atheists] also differ from certain fellow atheists in that they do not claim to know that God does not exist."

To which you responded with:

"Firstly, not all atheists claim to know there is no God. Some are more diplomatic with such a word as 'know'."

I agreed, because it is true that not every atheist claims _to know_ that God does not exist; there are other ways of expressing your non-belief or lack of belief or belief in the non-existence of God, or whatever you want to call it. For example, by using the words "it is true that" instead of "I know that" (by the way, that I all put them into the same category does not mean that they are not different groups, this was exactly my point in putting them together like I did; because they are not necessarily the same group)

Now, this, apparently, was not very understandable to you, since you asked me to further specify what sort of atheist who differed from agnostic atheists I meant to refer to. So, I did, and I answered:

"I meant those atheists who claim to know that God does not exist or, in other words, who subscribe to 'strong atheism'; who say that it is true that God does not exist. These strong atheists are indeed 'certain fellow atheists' to agnostic atheists, but 'certain fellow atheists' does mean the same as 'all fellow atheists'."

And here is where the logic comes in, because basically I stated: "I meant those atheists who claim that A or, in other words, who subscribe to B, and who say that it is true that C. And there are atheists besides these atheists and the agnostic atheists."

Now, you could argue that my formulation was a bit off in that I should have been more clear about the fact that "Atheists who claim that A", "Atheists who subscribe to B" and "Atheists who say that it is true that C" do not necessarily refer to the _same_ atheists. I could have done this more accurately by saying:

"I meant those atheists who claim to know that God does not exist or, in other words, atheists who subscribe to 'strong atheism'; those atheists who say that it is true that God does not exist."

instead of:

"I meant those atheists who claim to know that God does not exist or, in other words, who subscribe to 'strong atheism'; who say that it is true that God does not exist."

This would have been more clear, but this is a grammatical and not necessarily a logical difference. Regardless, your attack was not that I was not clear enough about this, but that I basically said the same thing three times. This claim of yours is false, because it may not apply. I will explain why.

It would be true if "Atheists who claim that A", "Atheists who subscribe to B" and "Atheists who say that it is true that C" would actually mean the same for everyone who uses these expressions. Now, that in A, B and C the non-existence of God is affirmed in some way (sometimes using the same words), does not change that these propositions can have different meanings depending on what you take the meaning of the exact words in the propositions regarding A, B and C to be. This is called the context principle; in this case it basically means that the meaning of the words "God does not exist" changes depending on the sentence they are used in. Surely, the proposition "I know that Mary exists" has a different meaning than the propositions "I believe that Mary exists." and "I fear that Mary exists.", there are different propositional attitudes involved, namely 'knowing that', 'believing that' and 'fearing that', of which 'knowing that' can even be argued not to be a proper propositional attitude at all. Anyway, in every sentence the proposition "Mary exists" is affirmed in some way, but that does not at all mean that these sentences have the same meaning. If you do not believe this, then I suggest brushing up on modern logic (i.e. logic in the tradition of Frege; not of Aristotle, whose syllogistic logic will not help you in this case, unless you insist on creating grammatical problems for yourself).

Now, I explained how people may actually have epistemological beliefs that make it possible to say that "to know that God does not exist" means something else than to assert that "it is true that God does not exist", so that if I claim the one or the other, I claim something different from the other or the one, respectively. Now, that you personally do not differentiate between these ways of affirming God's non-existence/negating God's existence, does not change that other people can and do differentiate them. Whether you are correct or they are correct does not matter either. What matters is that some people will deny to have claimed one of these things, while affirming that they have said the other, so that different groups of people exist who claimed one of these things, but none of the other things. Now, you could of course say that they are mistaken in claiming to have said the one thing but not the other, since these things have the same meaning (according to you), but that does not change the fact that these people will put themselves in different groups, which is why my distinctions were justified and relevant.

I will give you another example to show how this works: let's say that I claim to love my girlfriend, do I thereby also claim to adore her or to have a crush on her or to be infatuated with her? That depends entirely on whether you treat these as synonyms or not. The relationships between the terms "to love", "to have a crush on" and "to be infatuated with" is not set in stone; these relationships are greatly dependent on how I use them, in what context I use them, etc. Some people will at certain moments use these as synonyms, while they use these terms differently at other moments. The same could be said of claiming "to know that God exists" and claiming that "it is true that God exists". As I have said before, that you are familiar with these as synonyms in no way implies that their synonymy is necessary or always assumed. This is also why their possible synonymy, even when it is assumed, does not make them tautological. A tautology only exists when exactly the same words are used, such as in the form 'A=A', but not as in the form 'A=B'. I hope you understand this; if not, I would advice you to look into analytic philosophy (especially the works of Russell, Wittgenstein and *Quine*). If you keep insisting, however, that I said exactly the same thing in three differently formulated atomic sentences, then I can only say that you are wrong and that the context principle is the main reason why you are wrong. Do not try to divorce words from the sentence they are used in, it will not bring you any closer to their meaning... It is a typically Socratic mistake to think that it will...


----------



## KateMarie999

Protestant, though that's as far as I know. I don't subscribe to a denomination though my beliefs line up with Baptist or Evangelical Free mostly.


----------



## Lord Necro

I've been Agnostic ever since I was a young teenager. When religion and atheism clash, it isn't pretty. Both sides have their claims and what they would call "evidence". In the end, I find it most logical to be Agnostic.


----------



## Lerena

I'm not sure what my religion is, because I believe that I lack a proper understanding of the subject. I do not know enough about religion to suggest that I fit a particular label.

However, the religion I do believe in is monotheistic. I call myself a Christian, but this is technically incorrect. I don't believe in the Bible enough. The Bible is symbolic, not literal. If it was literal, I imagine less people would like it. But, I can't seem to reason that I am anything else. I am 100% sure I believe in God and this is one belief that I don't expect to ever change.


----------



## Turlowe

Agnostic. I don't believe that theres a higher power governing the universe, but as theres no clear evidence one way or the other I can't be certain.


----------



## The Dude

I'm a deist, and I really don't consider it to be a personal religion, but a philosophy.


----------



## Highway Nights

Agnostic. Used to be an Atheist, was a Christian before that.


----------



## overtherainbow

Agnostic


----------



## Catwalk

I am a strong atheist, freethinker and irreligious.


----------



## ZZZVader

I'm a closeted atheist with a strict religious family.
(Closeted because people in this faith disown you if you are not one of them)

I also enjoy having school paid for. xD


----------



## NewYorkEagle

I'm an atheist since I don't believe in god and such. I also find religions to be unfair with my lifestyle, since it's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo (no offense to those who are religious) that I honestly didn't want in my whole life.


----------



## Ausserirdische

I'm an agnostic atheist. I used to be a Christian until I was 12 (although I never really strongly believed in it), which was less than a year after I got baptized. I don't say it to a lot of people though as most of them are pretty much assholes towards atheism.


----------



## NomadLeviathan

The Way, The Truth, and The Life

Rather than traditions or rules or dusty old tomes, it's about Presence and Life.


----------



## Delicious Speculation

Deist with elements of Judaism. The Temple of CleverCait.


----------



## Glory

culturally Roman Catholic, but philosophically atheist.


----------



## Preciselyd

I voted Other. I refer to myself as a "Believer but not doer of the word".

The Bible indicates from Old Testament to New Testament and the removed books from the Bible that one must be a doer. I am far from a doer.


----------



## Lakigigar

Atheist - INFP (non-religious).


----------



## Jaune

Atheist, largely areligious.


----------



## Just Peachy

A Catholic of the Christmas and Easter Mass attender type.


----------



## Witch of Oreo

Orthdox Christian converted to Waifuism


----------



## Cal

:shocked:Where is the Pastafarian option?


* *




But in all seriousness, I consider myself agnostic.


----------



## Sybow

Other. I have my own beliefs.


----------



## Potatooesunshinerays

I don't have a religion


----------



## Atom

I’m an atheist. My family tried to raise me as a christian and took me to church when I was a child...it didn’t work.


----------



## Elspeth

I go to a Protestant church, but it's not a typical one. And I do have my own beliefs beyond that.


----------



## Crystal Winter Dream

I am Catholic


----------



## Xool Xecutioner

I don't believe in a religion with a central body. I do, however, believe in an impersonal god that doesn't intervene to humans' demands.


----------



## ca3

New Thought


----------



## jcal

By the choices given in the poll and the term most would use, I'm agnostic. However, I think the term apatheist fits better. It's not so much that I believe you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a deity... it's more that I find the whole subject uninteresting and irrelevant. There's no good reason to waste brain cycles even thinking about it.


----------



## angelfish

I'm a panentheist - I believe there is a God who contains the universe(s) and goes beyond it as well. I was raised Catholic/am culturally Catholic, and still retain much of that heritage, but resonate most with mysticism... hesycasm/religious meditation, theosis, lectio divina, divine love poetry, Sufi poetry. I recently read about Konkokyo which seems pretty up my alley. I'm technically agnostic as well.


----------



## Folsom

For all intents and purposes I'm an Atheist, but specifically a Satanist. One of the most misunderstood and maligned religious groups in my opinion.

The 7 tenets of Satanism (The Satanic Temple versions):



One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and remediate any harm that may have been caused.
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

For anyone who feels like educating themselves further:





https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/learn


----------



## Mick Travis

Cyberpunk said:


> For all intents and purposes I'm an Atheist, but specifically a Satanist. One of the most misunderstood and maligned religious groups in my opinion.


lol That's by design.


----------



## Folsom

Mick Travis said:


> lol That's by design.


Only if you consider it to be a troll religion, which I don't.


----------



## Mick Travis

Cyberpunk said:


> Only if you consider it to be a troll religion, which I don't.


It very much is.


----------



## Folsom

Mick Travis said:


> It very much is.



IS TST A MEDIA STUNT/HOAX/TROLLING, ETC.?


Some have conveniently concluded, upon observing The Satanic Temple’s media coverage, that the media attention itself is the primary objective of TST’s activities. While media outreach has helped to raise awareness of the campaigns we have initiated, these campaigns have ultimate goals related issues that are important to us and our membership.


So inured is the general public to the idea that there is only one monolithic voice of “the” religious agenda that any attempt at a counter-balance — or assertion of a minority voice — is often viewed as necessarily a mere targeted provocation against those who enjoy an unquestioned tacit assertion of sole squatters rights in the religio-political dialogue.


https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/learn

I can see where the view that it's a troll religion comes from. But the idea isn't to annoy the religious, it's to counter-balance them.


----------



## Mick Travis

Cyberpunk said:


> I can see where the view that it's a troll religion comes from. But the idea isn't to annoy the religious, it's to counter-balance them.


Make no mistake about it, the movement harbors both those objectives.


----------



## Folsom

Mick Travis said:


> Make no mistake about it, the movement harbors both those objectives.


The religion might contain both trolls and 'true believers' but the trolls don't control the objective of the religion or its tenets.
The religion is based on the character of Satan from Paradise Lost, Revolt of the Angels, and other stories, nowhere in those books does it say that you should anger and upset religious people for the fun of it and you won't see that anywhere in the canon or in the actions of The Satanic Temple.

Any time they attempt to do something publicly it is always in response to a religious group doing something analogous first.
If trolling was one of the main objectives then it would be the Temple who would be the first ones to, say, put up a statue of Baphomet in a public square specifically to provoke a negative reaction, but they don't.


----------



## Mick Travis

Cyberpunk said:


> The religion might contain both trolls and 'true believers'


I'm pretty sure someone would have to be both to make it in the club.


----------



## Folsom

Mick Travis said:


> I'm pretty sure someone would have to be both to make it in the club.


I can say from personal experience that you're wrong, but of course that's what I would say if you were right too.


----------



## Mick Travis

Cyberpunk said:


> I can say from personal experience that you're wrong, but of course that's what I would say if you were right too.


It's nice they let people in who don't know that they're Pastafarians.


----------



## Folsom

Mick Travis said:


> It's nice they let people in who don't know that they're Pastafarians.


It's nice that most of the trolls who would have infected Satanism decided to become Pastafarians instead.


----------



## Mick Travis

Cyberpunk said:


> It's nice that most of the trolls who would have infected Satanism decided to become Pastafarians instead.



View attachment 808997


Satanism is a lot more fun if you get the joke.


----------



## Folsom

Mick Travis said:


> View attachment 808997
> 
> 
> Satanism is a lot more fun if you get the joke.


What's the joke?
I see a version of the Baphomet symbol made into a statue which had to be publicly acceptable because it was intended to be displayed in a public place. 
So the breasts of the original symbol were removed and replaced by a male and female on either side to represent the hermaphroditic nature of the symbol in a way in which the statue couldn't be removed based on issues of public decency, etc.

I really don't understand, what's the inherent joke of Satanism?


----------



## Mick Travis

Cyberpunk said:


> I really don't understand, what's the inherent joke of Satanism?


It's humanism. The stunt is to make fun of religious ceremony and cults. It bashes those horrible things God does in The Bible. It then turns Satan into the hero of the book.


----------



## Folsom

Mick Travis said:


> It's humanism. The stunt is to make fun of religious ceremony and cults. It bashes those horrible things God does in The Bible. It then turns Satan into the hero of the book.


That would make the Bible the main book in the Satanist canon, but it isn't. One of the main ideas in Satanism is humanism, but that by no means defines the whole ideology.

And I don't think the stunt is to make fun of religious ceremony. Satanism is its own non-theistic religion with its own ceremonies.
Lucien Greaves explains why The Satanic Temple does ceremonial things in the video I posted.
There are aesthetic aspects to every religion and the aesthetic aspects are what attracts people to it a lot of the time.


----------



## ShashaCruz

Sikhism


----------



## Dissentient

Agnostic Atheist


----------



## Fohra

Love.


----------



## skycloud86

I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist, although I have a growing interest in Buddhism.


----------



## Skeletalz

Like 5 different branches of Abrahamic religion and 10 rather obscure (in the first world) religions and you leave out Paganism? A disappointing performance.


----------



## PowerShell

Catholic. My fiancee is Methodist. We switch every other weekend going to each other's services. We're doing our marriage prep through the Catholic Church.


----------



## DAVIE

I'm agnostic if anyone wants to know as its always healthy to be slightly open minded and have that inch of doubt in case the impossible happens.

But as for organised religion? Hell no.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip

I voted Buddhist, but my beliefs are a mix of secular Buddhism, agnosticism, pantheism, and polytheism. I could explain how those all mix in my beliefs if you really need me to. But please, do I really have to?


----------



## strawberryLola

Photography. I find there are flaws inherent in every world religion. Religion sucks!


----------



## Skimt

I see remnants of the gods in the behavior and actions of those closest to me. For instance, I see Frøya in my sister, and I see Tor in her husband. I will go where ever the gods want me to go, but I consider my connection to Vanan the strongest, even if that might not be the case. I treat ravens, crows, and magpies with a sense of humility as I see them as akin to Valkyrje, and I consider Nornan as being the gods of the gods. I don't call it Æsetru, Vanetru or Nornatru, since it's not one specific god or set of gods to which I adhere, and I don't call it religion since it's not organized, and I will reject any claim that your gods and mine are the same just because they share the same name. My view of them, and your view of them is relative. 

I have copies of the Edda, and I've studied them in Norwegian, New Norwegian, and Old Norwegian. Other than that, I don't mess up my fashion sense over it, nor do I cover my house in trinkets. Instead I have tattoos with symbols and text (using regional younger futhark) that only I know the exact meaning of. For instance, one text appeals to keeping me from a life of chaos and torment, and another text appeals to where or to whom I wish to go when I die.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip

Skimt said:


> I see remnants of the gods in the behavior and actions of those closest to me. For instance, I see Frøya in my sister, and I see Tor in her husband. I will go where ever the gods want me to go, but I consider my connection to Vanan the strongest, even if that might not be the case. I treat ravens, crows, and magpies with a sense of humility as I see them as akin to Valkyrje, and I consider Nornan as being the gods of the gods. I don't call it Æsetru, Vanetru or Nornatru, since it's not one specific god or set of gods to which I adhere, and I don't call it religion since it's not organized, and I will reject any claim that your gods and mine are the same just because they share the same name. My view of them, and your view of them is relative.
> 
> I have copies of the Edda, and I've studied them in Norwegian, New Norwegian, and Old Norwegian. Other than that, I don't mess up my fashion sense over it, nor do I cover my house in trinkets. Instead I have tattoos with symbols and text (using regional younger futhark) that only I know the exact meaning of. For instance, one text appeals to keeping me from a life of chaos and torment, and another text appeals to where or to whom I wish to go when I die.


Ravens, crows, and magpies are actually my favorite birds, and they're said to be the most intelligent birds.

My dad's family had 2 pet crows when he was a kid. They were orphan birds. They let them fly anywhere they wanted, but they felt loyalty to their human family and would always return.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip

Kind of a weird idiosyncrasy I have that only means something to me and isn't really "valid" in reality is that I divide my year into sevenths in honor of different entities, and I always have my own ways of celebrating the end of one seventh and the beginning of another. I just enjoy having my own "weirdness" or whatever. The sevenths are as follows:

January 1 to February 22- Syd Barrett
February 23 to April 15- the Earth- Gaia
April 16 to June 6- Kwan Yin
June 7 to July 28- the Sun- Sol
July 29 to September 18- Apollo
September 19 to November 9- Tyr
November 10 to December 31- the Moon- Selene

Btw, both my birthday and Syd Barrett's birthday are on January 6.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip

I'm wondering if I should celebrate my "holiday" a day early on the 5th this year. I'm kinda flexible about that stuff.


----------



## blossomier

Atheist. I don't have a religion, but I get why people do. I just dislike when they want to convince me to join their religion. When I was 12-13 I told my mom I didn't believe in God and she got appalled. She's a hardcore catholic. Nowadays she doesn't mind at all, but sometimes she wants me to pray with her.

When someone says "God bless you" I think it's okay. No sweat. It's common to say that, so I don't mind.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip

blossomier said:


> I just dislike when they want to convince me to join their religion.


I hate it. Sometimes when I see a manic street preacher yelling at pedestrian bar goers and such through a megaphone, I'd like to grab his megaphone and beat him over the head with it. But that's kinda illegal. So instead I just flash the sign of the devil at him and yell "Hail Satan!"


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

When I was a young teenager I told my aunt that the Buddha made a lot of sense, she got mad and told me to go to sleep. In other words, Lisa Simpson anticipated me. I never saw that episode until last year and I thought it was so familiar because when I was a teenager I did the same exact quest of reading about all of the religions and trying to pick the one I liked the most.

My family is Eastern Orthodox. But I never understood any of it. When I was a kid, other kids were talking about being Catholic or Jewish. I didn’t understand what any of these words meant, so I got curious and looked it up. My young mind concluded that Orthodox meant correct belief. But I realized nobody seemed to believe the doctrines of my church.

Popular culture is based on Western Christianity. So anything I thought I knew was wrong. My mom used to go to psychic mediums and talk to dead people so I politely informed her that our religion doesn’t believe in ghosts. She got slightly mad. So I basically gave up and decided nobody even cares about their own religion so it was utterly pointless.

I am now into Buddhist studies but I’m not planning on telling anyone in my family because they’d probably think I’d go to hell, even though that’s another thing our religion doesn’t teach. The only religious leader I liked since I got Facebook was the Dalai Lama, that might have bothered people too so I always used privacy features.

The biggest problem is the incredible amount of guilt involved. You have to do xyz ritual otherwise you are being bad and I also felt guilty as a kid because my prayers didn’t seem to get any replies so I thought I was doing it wrong or wasn’t believing hard enough.

I was basically always agnostic even when I much more privy toward belief.


----------



## Glittris

I am not religious. Religion is used for filling in the blank leftovers from unmet childhood needs... Also, do not get me wrong, religion is great, gives comfort and a compass in life and many things that we take for granted today might have not even existed if religion didn't exist.

So, what do I believe in then? Well, I am not religious...


----------

