Right, because you keep arguing it's a relevant factor when it isn't. You'll say "my argument isn't agism" and then in the same post make an argument that's exactly that.
Except the arguments don't actually have anything to do with age by itself, I'm really not sure how you're not getting that provenance and age aren't the same thing. While yes, 'too young to be real' is a stupid statement, in general being a closer to an event means there is more evidence. This is important for the follow-up that you dismissed, so disconnect from the earlier statement and actually pay attention to what I'm writing now.
So let's flip this. Why should a believer in an older religion feel that a new upstart religion is more truthful than their own?
... Are you kidding me, dude? What did we just get through talking about?
You're missing the point. Why don't more Christians switch to Scientology? Scientology's claims are no less ridiculous than any other Religions. Maybe it's because we know that Scientology is the warped byproduct of a Science Fiction author we can identify, and we can trace the beliefs directly back to him?
L. Ron probably didn't receive any kind of divine revelations or anything along those lines - he probably had some mental health issues of his own. And yet, he's already being mythologized as a great figure in the church rather than as a rich crackpot, and in another 50 or 100 years, I'm sure there will be even more ridiculous feats attributed to him - especially with the amount of wealth and prestige they're able to pull to the church.
Christianity is unappealing because it is unproven. The gap of, "divinity is a possibility" to "My interpretation of divinity is correct" is just too large for me to accept. Which is the major issue I have with most Creationist (Theistic) arguments in general.
Except the arguments don't actually have anything to do with age by itself, I'm really not sure how you're not getting that provenance and age aren't the same thing. While yes, 'too young to be real' is a stupid statement, in general being a closer to an event means there is more evidence. This is important for the follow-up that you dismissed, so disconnect from the earlier statement and actually pay attention to what I'm writing now.
the point is that God is a real thing and a spirit, whether you like it or not and because it is a real thing and that people are not ready to follow it. People will say this.
Christianity is unappealing because it is unproven. The gap of, "divinity is a possibility" to "My interpretation of divinity is correct" is just too large for me to accept. Which is the major issue I have with most Creationist (Theistic) arguments in general.
That is why we listen to Jesus. He's been through all of this doubt. He even preaches faith.
Christianity is unappealing because it is unproven. The gap of, "divinity is a possibility" to "My interpretation of divinity is correct" is just too large for me to accept. Which is the major issue I have with most Creationist (Theistic) arguments in general.
That is why we listen to Jesus. He's been through all of this doubt. He even preaches faith.
I'm assuming you mean well, but that really isn't an argument at all. As someone who is minimally spiritual, why should I believe in Christ any more so then Anasi, Coyote, Thor or any other "diety"? I'd imagine that all are claimed to be true by their respective believers.
Imagine if you will, that I am a native on an undiscovered island that has never had contact with the outside world. I am told creationist stories from across regions and time. How am I to know which one, if any, are true?
Jesus may have had his doubts towards his divinity, but he probably was taught from a young age of his virgin birth and all the phenomena surrounding it. I'd argue that in that sense it would be easier for Jesus to believe than say the aforementioned islander.
the point is that God is a real thing and a spirit, whether you like it or not and because it is a real thing and that people are not ready to follow it. People will say this.
Could you specify which God you think is real? What do you mean by 'spirit'?
Jay, since it's been a while, maybe it would be best for you to restate what position, exactly, you are arguing, so we're both on the same page? I think that would help immensely going forward.
Except the arguments don't actually have anything to do with age by itself, I'm really not sure how you're not getting that provenance and age aren't the same thing.
This statement seems to be you saying, "I'm not talking about age, I'm talking about the time period in which something originated from, and how one thing's time of origin may be before or after another thing's time of origin!"
... Which is what age is.
While yes, 'too young to be real' is a stupid statement, in general being a closer to an event means there is more evidence.
How does that follow?
You're missing the point. Why don't more Christians switch to Scientology?
You answer your own question two sentences later.
Scientology's claims are no less ridiculous than any other Religions.
Of course it is, because of what you say a sentence later.
Maybe it's because we know that Scientology is the warped byproduct of a Science Fiction author we can identify, and we can trace the beliefs directly back to him?
Erm, yeah, that's a pretty good indication as to why.
I'd argue that both Scientology and any other modern religion employ similar tactics to garner more believers, though Christianity has thousands of years to call it "tradition". That's a luxury Scientology can only wish it could employ.
In regards to Scientology and Christianity, they both don't provide any substantial evidence to prove their claims. Saying that because we know the identity of the creator of Scientology is irrelevant. The fact that neither of them can provide evidence is the most prominent issue within their respective faiths.
I'd argue that both Scientology and any other modern religion employ similar tactics to garner more believers,
Justify this statement?
Saying that because we know the identity of the creator of Scientology is irrelevant.
Now how on earth could that possibly be irrelevant?
No one can justifiably argue that Scientology wasn't a religion that was just made up by a hack science fiction writer to exploit people because we have plenty of evidence because we have factual evidence to note exactly that.
Jay, since it's been a while, maybe it would be best for you to restate what position, exactly, you are arguing, so we're both on the same page? I think that would help immensely going forward.
I don't think there is much to gain from continuing this particular line of discussion, but I'll try to explain what I meant in a fresh way. Let's ignore everything what came before, and keep in mind that the comment 'too young to be real' was more flippant than substantive. My point was, essentially, that I view Christianity like most people would view Scientology. We know Scientology is probably false because we know where it came from, and those roots are anything but believable. My point was that we can also pretty clearly track Christian beliefs back to their roots in a completely different faith (what I meant by provenance), and we know how easily traditions get garbled over time, so why would I believe Christianity over any other belief?
My point was that we can also pretty clearly track Christian beliefs back to their roots in a completely different faith (what I meant by provenance), and we know how easily traditions get garbled over time, so why would I believe Christianity over any other belief?
I mean, whether or not you believe Christianity over any other belief is up to you, but I'm not sure why tracking its roots to a completely different faith somehow invalidates it.
I was going to post through this forum a lot of facts from the bible and how they all fit into the logic of things and how it works against your opinion and arguments and does that work or does it not and all that. Now I speak as a christian the thing I should have done instead of dissect your arguments and opinions and all that in the name of logic. I will only, from now on and for the purposes of learning; and for the benefit of the other persons learning teach about the bible in logical and "rational form" the way I want it to be done unto me ;), note that I try not to make argument but try and keep peace. I only try because I don't want to harm others. I wish that it meant I can speak in freedom but as Christ has said "Go forth and spread the word of God." not belittle peoples arguments in a hard-boiled egg. While this may be extreme please note that I only wish to serve God and the Bible for I believe them to be of truth, God bless and amen.
Infraction for Spam. If you want to change your posting style or argument style, show us by doing so. A post telling us you are going to do it doesn't advance the discussion or debate, and qualifies as spam.
My point was that we can also pretty clearly track Christian beliefs back to their roots in a completely different faith (what I meant by provenance), and we know how easily traditions get garbled over time, so why would I believe Christianity over any other belief?
I'm not sure why tracking its roots to a completely different faith somehow invalidates it.
It doesn't completely invalidate it, but it certainly casts doubt on modern claims. And remember, I'm only discussing why I myself don't believe. The fact that I know they're a cult offshoot of a cult offshoot of the Semetic Sky God cult is just one of many factors that makes me very skeptical toward the belief system. There are much better and more clear reasons to not believe besides the issue of how the story evolved.
Hey guys. I'm back. I don't know what conversation has been going on for the past 12 pages, but I'm going to reply to the OP. If that's poor form, feel free to ignore and continue.
I was a Christian not long ago, and a quite strongly believing one at that. When I say I find these things unappealing, understand that they were unappealing to a degree which lead to my rejection of the faith. I am listing these chronologically as I "discovered" them. You may see how one objection led me to another in some cases.
1. It is not fair that people who never hear the word of God through no fault of their own will go to Hell.
2. The whole idea of Hell doesn't make sense if God is benevolent.
3. The amount of natural suffering in the world doesn't make sense if God is benevolent.
4. There is evidence of scriptures being altered over history for theocratic purposes.
5. There are other scriptures with as much legitimacy as the canon scriptures that tell a very different story.
6. I have no reason to believe that Jesus said any of the things we are told that he said.
Number six is when it all came crumbling down for me. Until then, I was just having serious doubts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
I'd say there's 3 main things that make christianity unappealing to me:
1) It changes people for the worse. The religion uses guilt (eg If you are attracted to a beautiful person - which is normal - that's adultery and you should feel bad for it) and it caters to people's selfishness (eg Eternal paradise awaits you if you believe x,y,z). Everyone treats the bible like a buffet - they ignore the passages they don't like and embrace the ones they do like. If someone happens to be intolerant toward other cultures, other belief systems, homosexuals, etc, it is easy to find passages to support your intolerance. For years I've argued against christians who say that slavery is not so bad - they never would have said this had they not become religious. It is easy to interpret the bible in a way that makes it sound like you will be rewarded for being terrible.
2) It makes no sense. God is love...and He makes hell. And commits genocide. And when his only son is killed, it makes Him so happy that people can be saved from...Himself apparently. Discussing the absurdities in the bible would be longer than the book itself.
3) It makes people dishonest. If they believe that saying X is what a good christian should say and they know its wrong, then they will still argue for X no matter how absurd it is because they think their afterlife depends on it. If God was real, I think He would be quite ashamed about what others are saying in His name.
Before explaining my views I want to clarify that I am an agnostic, not an atheist, and as such I am indifferent to the existence of any particular god or pantheon, and my largest issue is with the Christian church and the effect it has on many individuals, rather than Christianity itself on a conceptual level.
My opinion on the Christian religion is that it is a philosophical and moral education system constructed to teach the masses right from wrong. Given the context in which it was invented, I do not disagree with its method. I kind of equate it with The Analects in purpose, but given the nature of the society in which it evolved it took a religious tone rather than a scholarly one.
When taken as a philosophical or moral education system, I support it to an extent, in the respect of providing a grounds on which to discuss moral and philosophical dilemmas. Interpreting religious texts is a heavy aspect of morality and philosophy prior to the scientific age in which we currently live.
Due to the global-spanning nature of the organization and the manner in which it is generally taught(sermons), modern day christianity(and organizaed christianity in general) tends to discourage debate, free-thinking and reinterpretation. It very much tends to fall under the religious leader saying "this is how X is interpreted, if you disagree you're wrong". This is not a modern development but lasts at least as far back as the split between Catholicism and Protestantism, if not further considering the religious sect splits common to the middle east).
By teaching morality and philosophy in this format, it inherently teaches individuals to themselves be unwilling to brook open debate and reinterpretation of things.
Essentially I don't think that religion(christian or otherwise) is an inherently bad teaching tool for the purpose of morals and ethics. But I strongly object to the way in which it is used by religious groups and organizations to teach and the bad mindsets it fosters in people as a result.
You can be a gnostic or agnostic atheist, as well as a gnostic or agnostic theist, but claiming that you're not atheist, only agnostic is incorrect.
Even if this is "true" don't you think it's a bit pedantic? Some people associate "atheist" with "gnostic atheist," so what's wrong with saying "I am an agnostic, not an atheist" to be clear? Everyone understands what's meant - qaenyin doesn't know whether god exists or not.
Either you actively believe in a higher being, or you don't.
Why must that be the case? For example, I have no idea whether you're male or female. Am I forced to either actively believe you're male, or to actively believe you're female? Of course not. I have no idea which one you are, and I have no reason to hold an active belief either way. Couldn't someone take the same position about god?
Either you actively believe in a higher being, or you don't.
Why must that be the case? For example, I have no idea whether you're male or female. Am I forced to either actively believe you're male, or to actively believe you're female? Of course not. I have no idea which one you are, and I have no reason to hold an active belief either way. Couldn't someone take the same position about god?
That's not what he says though. To make the analogy accurate: I don't know whether you are male or female. I could actively believe you're male, or I could not actively believe you're male, a position which covers both the neutral position (I have no believe about your gender either way), or actively believing you're female.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Either you actively believe in a higher being, or you don't.
Why must that be the case? For example, I have no idea whether you're male or female. Am I forced to either actively believe you're male, or to actively believe you're female? Of course not. I have no idea which one you are, and I have no reason to hold an active belief either way. Couldn't someone take the same position about god?
That's not what he says though. To make the analogy accurate: I don't know whether you are male or female. I could actively believe you're male, or I could not actively believe you're male, a position which covers both the neutral position (I have no believe about your gender either way), or actively believing you're female.
I understand your point, but as you said, "not actively believing you're male" encompasses the possibility that I actively believe you're female. If I want to exclude that possibility, I would say something like "I have no active beliefs as to whether you are male or female." This is like saying you're simply an "agnostic" as opposed to an "agnostic atheist." Just "agnostic" suggests you have no active beliefs about the existence or nonexistence of god.
It's extremely important for people to understand the correct definitions in matters like these, because so many people get them wrong.
What makes your definition "correct" and so many other people's definition "wrong"?
Also, even granting that this is the case, you have not actually explained why "[i]t's extremely important to understand the correct definitions". What you've said is precisely formally equivalent to "It's extremely important to understand the correct fork to use for the salad dish, because so many people use the wrong one." The mere fact of incorrectness does not make correctness important.
Finally, isn't "agnostic atheism" redundant under your definitions, since "agnostic theism" would be oxymoronic? Simply saying "agnostic" conveys exactly the same information in fewer syllables. It's like people are saying "beagle" and you're insisting "no, it's gotta be 'beagle dog'." Why bother?
That would be agnostic atheism. Atheism is not a declaration that there is no god - that's gnostic atheism. Atheism simply means that you are not actively believing in a god. It is not a belief system in and of itself - that's theism. Atheism is a lack of theism. You don't need to take an active stance on the matter to be classified as atheist. You simply need to not actively believe. The problem is that you seem to think that atheist means someone who believes there is no god. It doesn't. It simply means someone who is not a theist. The word atheist only covers whether or not you are indeed a theist. If you are not, then you are an atheist by definition.
I'm familiar with these terms because I consider myself an agnostic atheist. And I satisfy your definition (as well as Wikipedia's definition) of this descriptor, in that I "do not know whether god(s) exist or not, and [I] do not actively believe in them."
For reference, here's wikipedia's definition of "atheism."
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
But I think there exist people who are agnostic and non-theist, yet do not meet this definition of "atheist." A pure agnostic would be someone who either (1) thinks there is equally persuasive evidence both for and against the existence of god, or (2) thinks there is absolutely zero evidence pointing in either direction. This person might then conclude that they take no position whatsoever regarding the existence of a god or gods. They do not accept or reject the existence of deities, they simply concede total ignorance.
I've noticed that almost any religious discussion that involves these labels can easily get sidetracked into what is (to my mind) a pointless discussion about the "proper" way to define the labels. If there's a genuine misunderstanding about what a person self-applying these labels believes, tabooing the words will solve the misunderstanding much more quickly than will arguing about the definitions.
For example, I label myself an atheist. Tabooing, I label myself as someone who expresses an affirmative belief that God does not exist. Tabooing further, I label myself as someone who believes that the epistemic probability that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent creator of all things exists can be bounded above by a suitably small quantity.
At that point there should be little room left for people to argue with me about what words I'm using. The same technique is generally applicable.
Which generally makes Wikipedia a fine source for most things, but on controversial issues such as this, their definition can change depending on which editor has been looking at the article most recently.
The fact that the meaning of the term is "controversial" suggests that it doesn't carry a rigid and prescriptive meaning such as the one you're insisting upon.
Do explain to me how atheism denotes anything besides a lack of theism. That is literally what the word means. Assigning a different connotation to it would simply be incorrect.
You keep saying stuff like this, but you never answered my question: "What makes your definition 'correct' and so many other people's definition 'wrong'?" By what standard are you making this determination? You just assert and reassert that what you say is right and what other people think is wrong, and when challenged to justify your assertion, you just reassert it again. I'll grant that you did make one real attempt at justification, but it turned out to be a fallacy so common it has its very own Wikipedia article.
So you have yet to meet your own burden of proof. Don't try to shift the burden to me. I could explain some introductory linguistics concepts: how it is a descriptive discipline and not a prescriptive one, how the relationship between words and meanings is arbitrary, how there is no authority determining the "correct" definitions and usages of words, how the usages of words change over time, how the only way the question of "correct" definition even makes sense is if we're asking how a word is commonly used and understood, how the prevalence of people using and understanding "atheist" to mean "active denier of God's existence" therefore makes that a "correct" definition, and how it is both pointless and ineffective to try to get a large population to change how they use words. I could explain all this, but I don't yet have to, because quid gratis asseritur gratis negatur: what's freely asserted is freely denied.
The mere fact, however, that such a discussion is needed and that there are people who genuinely believe that atheist means someone who believes that there are no deities, rather than simply meaning someone who doesn't believe in any deities goes to show that it's a rather common misunderstanding, no?
Or that it's not a misunderstanding at all. There are many people who genuinely believe that "beagle" means a breed of dog, rather than simply something noisy... and they're right!
However, a- as a prefix has a specific meaning within the English language, and unless that meaning itself were to change, the relationship between the words theist and atheist remains unchanged. A- as a prefix always means the same thing, regardless of which word it's attached to. Since that meaning is still "someone/something that is without/is not", there's no actual reason for why the definition should change for this one word. It's just flat-out wrong.
What's your opinion of the relationship between "aesthetic" and "anesthetic"? Because that's exactly the same Greek (not Latin) prefix at work. So which one of our two English words is "just flat-out wrong"?
In fact, if we are to go by the Wikipedia definition of the word, there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist. Only gnostic ones. Choosing to wholeheartedly reject a belief means that you have decided upon the veracity of said belief, and as such that you assume knowledge of the truth in that regard. If this does not show how fallacious that definition is, I find it hard to see how anything could possibly convince you that it's not the correct one.
I "reject belief in the existence of deities" but I am not a gnostic atheist. I think it's improbable that any kind of god exists, but I cannot know this for certain nor do I "assume knowledge of the truth" regarding god(s). I think I'm more likely to be right than wrong, but I'm not certain.
Basically I think there are at least three levels here:
Gnostic atheist - Rejects the existence of deities with a high degree of certainty.
Agnostic atheist - Rejects the existence of deities, but recognizes their existence as within the realm of reasonable possibility.
Pure agnostic - Neither accepts nor rejects the existence of deities. Takes no position. Complete uncertainty.
(B_S is right that it's not possible to force people to use words in a particular way, I'm just asserting that these definitions come closer to how the terms are typically used.)
It's controversial because it's a common misunderstanding caused by prejudice. Much like it's common to assume that transsexual and drag queen are the same thing, despite that being demonstrably wrong.
Comparing the minimal-to-nonexistent "prejudice" atheists face with the prejudice transsexuals experience is ... I was going to say "insulting," but "embarrassing" is probably a better word.
Except the arguments don't actually have anything to do with age by itself, I'm really not sure how you're not getting that provenance and age aren't the same thing. While yes, 'too young to be real' is a stupid statement, in general being a closer to an event means there is more evidence. This is important for the follow-up that you dismissed, so disconnect from the earlier statement and actually pay attention to what I'm writing now.
You're missing the point. Why don't more Christians switch to Scientology? Scientology's claims are no less ridiculous than any other Religions. Maybe it's because we know that Scientology is the warped byproduct of a Science Fiction author we can identify, and we can trace the beliefs directly back to him?
L. Ron probably didn't receive any kind of divine revelations or anything along those lines - he probably had some mental health issues of his own. And yet, he's already being mythologized as a great figure in the church rather than as a rich crackpot, and in another 50 or 100 years, I'm sure there will be even more ridiculous feats attributed to him - especially with the amount of wealth and prestige they're able to pull to the church.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
That is why we listen to Jesus. He's been through all of this doubt. He even preaches faith.
Imagine if you will, that I am a native on an undiscovered island that has never had contact with the outside world. I am told creationist stories from across regions and time. How am I to know which one, if any, are true?
Jesus may have had his doubts towards his divinity, but he probably was taught from a young age of his virgin birth and all the phenomena surrounding it. I'd argue that in that sense it would be easier for Jesus to believe than say the aforementioned islander.
Could you specify which God you think is real? What do you mean by 'spirit'?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
This statement seems to be you saying, "I'm not talking about age, I'm talking about the time period in which something originated from, and how one thing's time of origin may be before or after another thing's time of origin!"
... Which is what age is.
How does that follow?
You answer your own question two sentences later.
Of course it is, because of what you say a sentence later.
Erm, yeah, that's a pretty good indication as to why.
In regards to Scientology and Christianity, they both don't provide any substantial evidence to prove their claims. Saying that because we know the identity of the creator of Scientology is irrelevant. The fact that neither of them can provide evidence is the most prominent issue within their respective faiths.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
Now how on earth could that possibly be irrelevant?
No one can justifiably argue that Scientology wasn't a religion that was just made up by a hack science fiction writer to exploit people because we have plenty of evidence because we have factual evidence to note exactly that.
I don't think there is much to gain from continuing this particular line of discussion, but I'll try to explain what I meant in a fresh way. Let's ignore everything what came before, and keep in mind that the comment 'too young to be real' was more flippant than substantive. My point was, essentially, that I view Christianity like most people would view Scientology. We know Scientology is probably false because we know where it came from, and those roots are anything but believable. My point was that we can also pretty clearly track Christian beliefs back to their roots in a completely different faith (what I meant by provenance), and we know how easily traditions get garbled over time, so why would I believe Christianity over any other belief?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Infraction for Spam. If you want to change your posting style or argument style, show us by doing so. A post telling us you are going to do it doesn't advance the discussion or debate, and qualifies as spam.
It doesn't completely invalidate it, but it certainly casts doubt on modern claims. And remember, I'm only discussing why I myself don't believe. The fact that I know they're a cult offshoot of a cult offshoot of the Semetic Sky God cult is just one of many factors that makes me very skeptical toward the belief system. There are much better and more clear reasons to not believe besides the issue of how the story evolved.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I was a Christian not long ago, and a quite strongly believing one at that. When I say I find these things unappealing, understand that they were unappealing to a degree which lead to my rejection of the faith. I am listing these chronologically as I "discovered" them. You may see how one objection led me to another in some cases.
1. It is not fair that people who never hear the word of God through no fault of their own will go to Hell.
2. The whole idea of Hell doesn't make sense if God is benevolent.
3. The amount of natural suffering in the world doesn't make sense if God is benevolent.
4. There is evidence of scriptures being altered over history for theocratic purposes.
5. There are other scriptures with as much legitimacy as the canon scriptures that tell a very different story.
6. I have no reason to believe that Jesus said any of the things we are told that he said.
Number six is when it all came crumbling down for me. Until then, I was just having serious doubts.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
1) It changes people for the worse. The religion uses guilt (eg If you are attracted to a beautiful person - which is normal - that's adultery and you should feel bad for it) and it caters to people's selfishness (eg Eternal paradise awaits you if you believe x,y,z). Everyone treats the bible like a buffet - they ignore the passages they don't like and embrace the ones they do like. If someone happens to be intolerant toward other cultures, other belief systems, homosexuals, etc, it is easy to find passages to support your intolerance. For years I've argued against christians who say that slavery is not so bad - they never would have said this had they not become religious. It is easy to interpret the bible in a way that makes it sound like you will be rewarded for being terrible.
2) It makes no sense. God is love...and He makes hell. And commits genocide. And when his only son is killed, it makes Him so happy that people can be saved from...Himself apparently. Discussing the absurdities in the bible would be longer than the book itself.
3) It makes people dishonest. If they believe that saying X is what a good christian should say and they know its wrong, then they will still argue for X no matter how absurd it is because they think their afterlife depends on it. If God was real, I think He would be quite ashamed about what others are saying in His name.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
My opinion on the Christian religion is that it is a philosophical and moral education system constructed to teach the masses right from wrong. Given the context in which it was invented, I do not disagree with its method. I kind of equate it with The Analects in purpose, but given the nature of the society in which it evolved it took a religious tone rather than a scholarly one.
When taken as a philosophical or moral education system, I support it to an extent, in the respect of providing a grounds on which to discuss moral and philosophical dilemmas. Interpreting religious texts is a heavy aspect of morality and philosophy prior to the scientific age in which we currently live.
Due to the global-spanning nature of the organization and the manner in which it is generally taught(sermons), modern day christianity(and organizaed christianity in general) tends to discourage debate, free-thinking and reinterpretation. It very much tends to fall under the religious leader saying "this is how X is interpreted, if you disagree you're wrong". This is not a modern development but lasts at least as far back as the split between Catholicism and Protestantism, if not further considering the religious sect splits common to the middle east).
By teaching morality and philosophy in this format, it inherently teaches individuals to themselves be unwilling to brook open debate and reinterpretation of things.
Essentially I don't think that religion(christian or otherwise) is an inherently bad teaching tool for the purpose of morals and ethics. But I strongly object to the way in which it is used by religious groups and organizations to teach and the bad mindsets it fosters in people as a result.
Even if this is "true" don't you think it's a bit pedantic? Some people associate "atheist" with "gnostic atheist," so what's wrong with saying "I am an agnostic, not an atheist" to be clear? Everyone understands what's meant - qaenyin doesn't know whether god exists or not.
Why must that be the case? For example, I have no idea whether you're male or female. Am I forced to either actively believe you're male, or to actively believe you're female? Of course not. I have no idea which one you are, and I have no reason to hold an active belief either way. Couldn't someone take the same position about god?
That's not what he says though. To make the analogy accurate: I don't know whether you are male or female. I could actively believe you're male, or I could not actively believe you're male, a position which covers both the neutral position (I have no believe about your gender either way), or actively believing you're female.
I understand your point, but as you said, "not actively believing you're male" encompasses the possibility that I actively believe you're female. If I want to exclude that possibility, I would say something like "I have no active beliefs as to whether you are male or female." This is like saying you're simply an "agnostic" as opposed to an "agnostic atheist." Just "agnostic" suggests you have no active beliefs about the existence or nonexistence of god.
Also, even granting that this is the case, you have not actually explained why "[i]t's extremely important to understand the correct definitions". What you've said is precisely formally equivalent to "It's extremely important to understand the correct fork to use for the salad dish, because so many people use the wrong one." The mere fact of incorrectness does not make correctness important.
Finally, isn't "agnostic atheism" redundant under your definitions, since "agnostic theism" would be oxymoronic? Simply saying "agnostic" conveys exactly the same information in fewer syllables. It's like people are saying "beagle" and you're insisting "no, it's gotta be 'beagle dog'." Why bother?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm familiar with these terms because I consider myself an agnostic atheist. And I satisfy your definition (as well as Wikipedia's definition) of this descriptor, in that I "do not know whether god(s) exist or not, and [I] do not actively believe in them."
For reference, here's wikipedia's definition of "atheism."
But I think there exist people who are agnostic and non-theist, yet do not meet this definition of "atheist." A pure agnostic would be someone who either (1) thinks there is equally persuasive evidence both for and against the existence of god, or (2) thinks there is absolutely zero evidence pointing in either direction. This person might then conclude that they take no position whatsoever regarding the existence of a god or gods. They do not accept or reject the existence of deities, they simply concede total ignorance.
For example, I label myself an atheist. Tabooing, I label myself as someone who expresses an affirmative belief that God does not exist. Tabooing further, I label myself as someone who believes that the epistemic probability that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent creator of all things exists can be bounded above by a suitably small quantity.
At that point there should be little room left for people to argue with me about what words I'm using. The same technique is generally applicable.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The fact that the meaning of the term is "controversial" suggests that it doesn't carry a rigid and prescriptive meaning such as the one you're insisting upon.
So you have yet to meet your own burden of proof. Don't try to shift the burden to me. I could explain some introductory linguistics concepts: how it is a descriptive discipline and not a prescriptive one, how the relationship between words and meanings is arbitrary, how there is no authority determining the "correct" definitions and usages of words, how the usages of words change over time, how the only way the question of "correct" definition even makes sense is if we're asking how a word is commonly used and understood, how the prevalence of people using and understanding "atheist" to mean "active denier of God's existence" therefore makes that a "correct" definition, and how it is both pointless and ineffective to try to get a large population to change how they use words. I could explain all this, but I don't yet have to, because quid gratis asseritur gratis negatur: what's freely asserted is freely denied.
Or that it's not a misunderstanding at all. There are many people who genuinely believe that "beagle" means a breed of dog, rather than simply something noisy... and they're right!
What's your opinion of the relationship between "aesthetic" and "anesthetic"? Because that's exactly the same Greek (not Latin) prefix at work. So which one of our two English words is "just flat-out wrong"?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I "reject belief in the existence of deities" but I am not a gnostic atheist. I think it's improbable that any kind of god exists, but I cannot know this for certain nor do I "assume knowledge of the truth" regarding god(s). I think I'm more likely to be right than wrong, but I'm not certain.
Basically I think there are at least three levels here:
Gnostic atheist - Rejects the existence of deities with a high degree of certainty.
Agnostic atheist - Rejects the existence of deities, but recognizes their existence as within the realm of reasonable possibility.
Pure agnostic - Neither accepts nor rejects the existence of deities. Takes no position. Complete uncertainty.
(B_S is right that it's not possible to force people to use words in a particular way, I'm just asserting that these definitions come closer to how the terms are typically used.)
Comparing the minimal-to-nonexistent "prejudice" atheists face with the prejudice transsexuals experience is ... I was going to say "insulting," but "embarrassing" is probably a better word.