Conversation Between Sanguinius and NarutoActor
1 to 4 of 4
  1. NarutoActor
    July 19th, 2012 2:42 PM
    NarutoActor
    "Religion is a set of beliefs based on faith. Atheism and agnosticism are not." How so? Faith is believing in something, without proof, and you can not prove that God doesn't exist; hence atheism is a type of faith.
  2. Sanguinius
    July 19th, 2012 2:04 PM
    Sanguinius
    You write: "In which you begin to cleaim that I am clearly wrong, and that plato's theories support subjected morallity, when in reality plato's theories where the bases for objective morallity all through out history."

    To quote my VM: "And further, it's improper of you to appropriate Plato's theory on the nature of truth (i.e. that it is extant, absolute, and not subject to or determined by the moral claims of men)." Nowhere did I claim that it is Plato's position that morality is "subjected" (I believe you mean subjective). In fact, I described it as "extant, absolute and NOT subject to or determined by the moral claims of men."

    Your (frankly, very silly) opinion that atheism and agnosticism are religions is not "the truth" as Plato conceives of it. Plato has a very specific idea of what the (singular) absolute and objective truth of being and reality is, and that is the Form of the Good.

    Religion is a set of beliefs based on faith. Atheism and agnosticism are not. Atheism rejects the very notion of faith and claims as truth only that which is experientially verifiable, and agnosticism refuses to take a stance on faith, one way or another, out of lack of surety. Thus, neither of them are based on faith. They are not religions.

    And finally, your claim that it is my position that "deviations are not permitted" is ludicrous. These terms - religion, atheism, and agnosticism - weren't created by me, but rather by all of humanity as an expression of our linguistic ability, to refer to commonly held ideas or notions. It's not as if I've personaly told you that you can't deviate - rather, all of the English speaking world commands you to use words in a manner consistent with their proper, commonly held definitions!

    You can call an apple an orange, if you like, but it doesn't make you right, and you don't hold an acceptable alternative position - in fact, it makes you quite wrong, and the vast majority of speakers of English would freely tell you so. In the same way, you can call atheism a religion, if you like, but you are objectively wrong to do so.
  3. NarutoActor
    July 19th, 2012 1:22 PM
    NarutoActor
    First I would like to say that, I with held myself from instantly replying the second I read your post. For it did give me a sour taste in my mouth. I left it, and came back to it, to dissect it piece my piece to give you a logical rational response. Your first sentence is you justifying, your entire message. Then you go on to say that philosophy is your field of study; which is meaning less to me. It is just your way of trying to intimidate me, by emfasising the fact that, you sangunius studies philosophy, sangunius knows philosophy, since I disagree with your interpretation of philosophy, I am are wrong, and should have believed you, because you, sanguinius know more then me, since I don't study philosophy( Which you don't know if I do or don't) and sanguinius studies philosophy. Then from there you go on with the rest of your paragraph which isn't to bad, it is just your definitions you found on atheism, and agnosticism. You defined them to make a statement, that my definition is in contrast with the popular definition, or accepted definition by [Insert website which definition arived from]. After that you feel the need to make it perfectly obvious that my definition, and that of yours provided differ, and that any deviations are not permitted. Since "these are simple and clear-cut defintions that leave little room for interpretation". If this was the whole VM, it wouldn't be too bad, the problem occures in your second paragraph. In which you begin to cleaim that I am clearly wrong, and that plato's theories support subjected morallity, when in reality plato's theories where the bases for objective morallity all through out history. You could have made your point in a more mature, rational way, but you didn't.

    PS. If you define religion as a set of beliefs based on faith, in conjunction with reason, you can include that definition to encompass atheism, and agnosticism. Does that satisfy as good reasoning?
  4. Sanguinius
    July 18th, 2012 12:54 PM
    Sanguinius
    Since you've been trying to explain 'philosophy' in your VMs with Toujours, I feel the need to jump in, as this is my field of study. Plato's Ethics are entirely irrelevant in the matter you discussed. The definition of atheism is the belief that there is no God or gods whatsoever, and the definition of agnosticism is a lack of surety as to whether or not there is a God or gods. Religion, by contrast, is defined as the belief in some sort of God, gods, or higher power(s). These are simple and clear-cut definitions that leave little room for interpretation.

    Your forced redefinition of atheism and agnosticism as religions in their own right is clearly false; the definitions are incompatible with each other. And further, it's improper of you to appropriate Plato's theory on the nature of truth (i.e. that it is extant, absolute, and not subject to or determined by the moral claims of men) to claim that your opinion is some sort of universal, indefatigable truth. It's not; in fact, it's false. Atheism and agnosticism are not religions.