[Roger Thornhill]

This promises to be a very interesting room on a promising new forum. However, I'm already seeing some discussions which are limited by preconceptions and misunderstandings.

For instance, there's already an agreement-to-disagree between some of those who claim to believe in God, and others who claim to be atheists. What do these words actually mean? Until we flesh out the concepts behind a word, the debate isn't going to accomplish much. If God is represented as an aging caucasian in a white robe seated on a cumulus cloud, lyre in hand, then I'm an atheist. But what about a Jungian collective superconscious? Or an aboriginal Great Spirit? A universal animus? We need to explain, within the limits of words, what we do believe, as well as what we do not.

Another point of discussion is the concept of "proof". Both formal scientific method and classical rhetoric have rigid defintions of proof. Yet many of the philosophical ideas we're looking at are outside the bounds of Western logic and the Rational canon. How can I prove the existence of something which cannot be measured, and cannot be perfectly defined? Take, for example, a thought. I can measure electro-chemical changes in the physical brain, I can produce images on an MRI, and I can observe the results of thought, but I cannot measure or perfectly define the thing itself. What about such abstracts as love, hope, compassion, envy, desire, or ambition? I can plainly see how they manifest, but not their actual being.

What about Reality? How do we define it? Is there a fixed, immutable, universal reality? Or is there, as some scientists and also some mystics postulate, only a projection of collective conciousness which exists from micro-second to micro-second as a physical construct? Which "reality" do we exist in, and which is "true"? Australian aboriginals believe that the physical world is merely a veil which hides the True Reality, the Dreamtime. The Hindus refer to it as Maya. Scientists tell us now that there are not four dimensions, but eleven. There is anti-matter, and an anti-universe. Again, they cannot be seen or measured, but only glimpsed secondarily by their effects on our existence.

What existed before the physical universe came into being? Was there even a beginning, or has it existed without limits either temporal or physical? My human mind is incapable of fully knowing the concepts of "infinite" or "timeless", because my brain is, and exists in, a finite physical construct constrained by time.

What is the reason for our existence? Is there life after death? What is a soul? How are we different from a very sophisticated machine?

I could go on with innumerable scattershot questions, but you get my drift. I'll start a few threads soon, such as the rejection of organized religion while embracing spirituality. Perhaps one on reincarnation. I welcome and hope for other people starting some reasoned discussions along these lines as well. This should be stimulating.

[Anita]

Discussion on aisle 7.

[Flint]

Roger,

I think answering your post will take several beers, but I'll give it a try anyway.

A0 posted a link on another thread to the atheist website, which I thought did a pretty good job of explaining how atheists in general see things. It's at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html and I think it answers some of your questions.

I'd like to point out that you aren't an atheist simply because you don't believe in the cartoon depiction of one Christian sect's image of their god. An atheist doesn't see any reason to accept any gods at all.

As for "proof", formal proofs are possible in artificial systems like logic and mathmatics, but science cannot ever offer a proof of anything, only a probability of being mostly correct. As for some of the things you mention like "love, hope, compassion, envy, desire, or ambition", you need to be careful not to reify these. They are not "things" in any physical sense, but rather terms describing states of mind which translate imperfectly, and do so at all only because human brains are sufficiently similar for these states to be somewhat comparable.

What about Reality? How do we define it? Is there a fixed, immutable, universal reality?

Ultimately, who can say? In practice, the presumption that there is such a reality, an objective universe, that this universe is internally consistent, and that it can in principle be understood, has worked very well.

What existed before the physical universe came into being?

I don't think anyone knows enough even to say whether this question has any semantic content.

What is the reason for our existence?

Pick whatever reason you prefer. This question has as many answers as there are people capable of asking it. Answers for each of us can be assessed based on how satisfying we find them. Different answers satisfy different people.

Is there life after death?

Currently, there is no evidence of any. And this despite millennia of desperate searching.

What is a soul?

Whatever you'd like. Words like "soul" are given meanings by convention, not observation.

How are we different from a very sophisticated machine?

Again, decide for yourself. Personally, I think we ARE sophisticated machines.

[Anita]

Flint: If you don't start putting an E in Mathe matics, I'm gonna have to start raggin' on you like Null did you and me when we put an "a" in cemetery! :beer: ;)

Back to Roger: I've thoroughly enjoyed my encounters with both Robert and Chills, and I think they're the best qualified to discuss this with you. I'm kindof "BTDT", and prolly even "BTDT" when I wasn't stoned. I just remember that it was a nice thought at the time but didn't work in the long run FOR ME.

[Robert]

Discussion on aisle 7.

Your inhaling, aren't you?

[Roger Thornhill]

Flint, I can see you're hamstrung by the same limits as the rest of us. Existing knowledge and vocabulary frustrate attempts at fresh insights. (I'm not chiding you here; just empathizing).

If you'd care to venture a toe in the water, I'd like to hear your thoughts on "what is" as well as your concepts of "what is not". I realize you're a strict adherent to Western logic and the scientific method, but I'd like to tease out some personal opinions which cannot be rigorously tested in the lab.

As you pointed out in your response, many of the abstract concepts which form our personal philosophies are little better than opinions. My point in coaxing people to put these on the table is to see if, upon examining them, my own worldview will become richer. I'm willing, eager even, to change my belief system when someone else's ideas are a better fit in the grand puzzle.

[Robert]

Roger, You pose some good questions but some could and have taken, volumes. Perhaps we could inquire into one at a time.
I agree this is turning into a fun place to hang around!

[Anita]

Your inhaling, aren't you?

I'm sure you meant to say "You're inhaling, aren't you?", and yes...I inhale and exhale regularly. Last time I looked, it was called BREATHING. If you're inquiring as to whether I still smoke Marijuana, the answer is VERY rarely. That's the great thing about having ever done it; we don't NEED it anymore. We can just IMAGINE ourselves stoned and we're THERE! :D

[Flint]

Roger,

I think you're looking for fresh insights in all the wrong places. I find a get precious little return on the effort invested, wondering what happened before there was time, whether it's colder in the north or in the winter, why we park on driveways and drive on parkways, whether some component of our personalities can be extracted and renamed, how real reality is, and the like. As I said, it takes quite a few beers before I can usefully extract the thin entertainment asking silly questions provides.

My world is probabilistic in any case. The best I can do is separate out what probably is from what probably isn't, and separate those from "insufficient data." Maybe for some of your questions, you might ask yourself "what would I do if I had the answer?"

You remind me of the joke where the husband, finally fed up, says to his wife "You want to know what I FEEL? Very well, then, I FEEL like watching the game!"

I certainly don't feel hamstrung for the lack of stupid answers to meaningless questions. YOU might feel that way, but I feel like watching the game.

[Robert]

I'm sure you meant to say "You're inhaling, aren't you?", and yes...I inhale and exhale regularly. Last time I looked, it was called BREATHING. If you're inquiring as to whether I still smoke Marijuana, the answer is VERY rarely. That's the great thing about having ever done it; we don't NEED it anymore. We can just IMAGINE ourselves stoned and we're THERE! :D

'You're' right, I was laughing when I wrote it!

I'm always making those mistakes. I'll have to proof my stuff. I think we should just change the word, it makes typing faster.
Flint's always catching me on something. I think I'm dyslexic or my brain is pushing out stuff.
Isn’t it odd how people think. I make those mistakes, especially when I’m tired but I can do math’E’matics in my sleep and I have photographic memory for numbers. Go figure. Maybe I was e. e. commings in my last life?

[Robert]

Roger,

I think you're looking for fresh insights in all the wrong places. I find a get precious little return on the effort invested, wondering what happened before there was time, whether it's colder in the north or in the winter, why we park on driveways and drive on parkways, whether some component of our personalities can be extracted and renamed, how real reality is, and the like. As I said, it takes quite a few beers before I can usefully extract the thin entertainment asking silly questions provides.

My world is probabilistic in any case. The best I can do is separate out what probably is from what probably isn't, and separate those from "insufficient data." Maybe for some of your questions, you might ask yourself "what would I do if I had the answer?"


Flint, respectfully I disagree, I think we should never stop asking questions, never stop inquiring about life after death, ‘god’ or whatever.
We can ask what we would do if we had the answer but in truth we simply don’t know. Answers have opened whole vistas of discovery and regardless of how long questions have been asked time does not preclude our ability to answer them, lack of reason does.

As far as life after death, I think we have a lot of information and again, you might want to look into Buddha selection. There are several books where educated people dismissed life after death but changed their minds when they made discoveries through their work, Moody for one. You might want to look at the work of George Anderson also.
Basically, I have validated past life experiences and am attempting to establish a scientific path to them much the same way, as for instance, Plank did with ultraviolet catastrophe or Newton did with the apple.

[Darkimbolc]

For instance, there's already an agreement-to-disagree between some of those who claim to believe in God, and others who claim to be atheists...If God is represented as an aging caucasian in a white robe seated on a cumulus cloud, lyre in hand, then I'm an atheist. But what about a Jungian collective superconscious? Or an aboriginal Great Spirit? A universal animus?

And what about us Heathen/Pagan Polytheists? ;)

[CanadaSue]

I'll dip my toes into these waters at some point but not for a bit - other stuff going on & man, don't I wish I could have 10 or more minds of my own working together?

In the meantime, I'm throughly enjoying reading these discussions.

[Chills]

Roger Thornhill

Some very interesting questions points and thoughts. I regret I didnt read this thread sooner.
Here are some thoughts of mine in reply.


Until we flesh out the concepts behind a word, the debate isn't going to accomplish much.?
I agree.

We need to explain, within the limits of words, what we do believe, as well as what we do not.
Again I agree.

Another point of discussion is the concept of "proof". Both formal scientific method and classical rhetoric have rigid defintions of proof. Yet many of the philosophical ideas we're looking at are outside the bounds of Western logic and the Rational canon. How can I prove the existence of something which cannot be measured, and cannot be perfectly defined? Take, for example, a thought. I can measure electro-chemical changes in the physical brain, I can produce images on an MRI, and I can observe the results of thought, but I cannot measure or perfectly define the thing itself.
I am not sure proof is either necessary or useful when we discuss, belief subjectively.
However I do think that if we are going talk of our particular belief as an absolute, some proof both rhetorical and empirical would be helpful.


What about such abstracts as love, hope, compassion, envy, desire, or ambition? I can plainly see how they manifest, but not their actual being.
I tend to think everyone of these you mention of, as being directly related to the survival of the group individual and species. I think they are simply instincts abstracted into words to identify the various emotions/behavior. Just a thought.

What about Reality? How do we define it? Is there a fixed, immutable, universal reality? Or is there, as some scientists and also some mystics postulate, only a projection of collective conciousness which exists from micro-second to micro-second as a physical construct? Which "reality" do we exist in, and which is "true"?
I tend to think of reality as a verb, rather than a noun. Don’t quite know how to explain that.

What existed before the physical universe came into being? Was there even a beginning, or has it existed without limits either temporal or physical? My human mind is incapable of fully knowing the concepts of "infinite" or "timeless", because my brain is, and exists in, a finite physical construct constrained by time.
I think this point is important. I think the problem we have here is not so much that the brain can not comprehend/experience the infinite but that we are constrained by the construct of language to deal with it. It is language that is finite. I will explore this later if anyone is interested.

What is the reason for our existence? Is there life after death? What is a soul? How are we different from a very sophisticated machine?
Here I can only ask: Why must there be a reason or a purpose?

[SmartAZ]

Hi Roger.

It sounds like you are asking us to watch for another essay that will make better sense. I don't mean that this essay is senseless, it's just that all the questions in this essay are meaningless in one way or another, although it might take a lot of thought to see why.

Take for instance, "Life after death". What is life? What is death? If you have meanings for both words then the phrase "life after death" contradicts one or both of those meanings. The concept lives on because very few people actually stick to the meanings of the words they use (if they ever think about the meanings at all).

Re all questions about this or that god: A need for a leader is wired into the human circuits. Atheists have been hurt by someone and so they deny that need. It is somewhat painful to deny a need, but not as painful as trusting someone who doesn't deserve their trust. People who have not been hurt so bad will find a god wherever they can. I have heard of people worshipping a chunk of concrete that fell off a truck, just because it was big and easily accessible (that happened in a parking lot in San Francisco). That is a response to a need. The response may seem silly, but the need is not silly at all. Many people are given a god when they are children, and then given intellectual justifications for that god. That naturally leads them to assume that a god can be chosen or rejected by an intellectual process. That's true, but it skirts the question of what a god is. Depending on how you define a god, most people could be said to worship their own intellects. The only problem with that is that a person's intellect is a slave to his emotions. A person who has been cheated by followers of X will not accept X as his god, even if he suspects that X is the best choice for a god. It is pointless to discuss god or any aspect of spirituality with such a person until the hurt has been healed. (Well, maybe not pointless. It's pleasant to discuss things as long as you don't disturb the wounds.)

Re "proof": A bunch of kids were getting acquainted with a kitten. Naturally, they wondered whether it was a boy or a girl, but they didn't know how to find out. Suddenly one of them piped up, "I know. Let's vote!" (Moral: You can't prove anything to someone who thinks everything is subject to a vote.) (The same goes for "reality".)

Re "What existed before the beginning?" - See comments about meanings and contradictions above. It's easy to answer that question from the bible because "beginning" is the first word. You can see what was before that by just turning the page: only some stuff that was added by men!

Flint:
As for some of the things you mention like "love, hope, compassion, envy, desire, or ambition", you need to be careful not to reify these.
Was that a mistype? I really want to know what this was supposed to say. Please clarify.

[Anita]

A need for a leader is wired into the human circuits. Atheists have been hurt by someone and so they deny that need.

Just wondering, because *I*'ve never been hurt by ANYONE and have found quite the opposite to be true: People who are hurting LONG for explanations/solutions/remedies [take your pick] that people who aren't hurting don't need.

Just remembering your embracement of Christianity, I think you described a time when YOU weren't happy, met people who WERE happy, and decided to attend Bible study with them.

[SmartAZ]

Chills:
I tend to think of reality as a verb, rather than a noun. Don’t quite know how to explain that.
I think most of us have no problem with what reality is. I always tell people that anything that bounces off my windshield must be reality. Another way to put it: Reality is anything you have to deal with AS IF it were reality. That definition is loose enough to include hallucinations, religious experiences, emotions, etc. I repeat, most of us have no problem with the concept. It's only other people's realities that give us problems.

Anita:
Just wondering, because *I*'ve never been hurt by ANYONE and have found quite the opposite to be true: People who are hurting LONG for explanations/solutions/remedies [take your pick] that people who aren't hurting don't need.
All cats are NOT gray after midnight. Endless variety. (Explanation: Nothing works exactly the same for all cases.)

Have you ever visited a Unitarian church? You will find a fascinating variety of beliefs there, and all of the people will forthrightly explain why they are there: because they got their feelings hurt in some other church. The average membership is about 2 1/2 years, and then they go someplace else, usually to another church of the same flavor they previously left. The leaders of the church know all this and worry about it a lot, because they want to help their fluid membership find peace and healing. They haven't quite figured out how to do this, but they are always working on it. (They call it their "side door ministry".)

Flint is a good example of someone who has been hurt and rejects formal religion because of it. He never discusses what he believes, just snarls and snaps about the shortcomings of other people's beliefs. (Aside to Flint: I respect your feelings, and I'm not trying to analyze you. I'm just offering an observation. I would welcome any discussion you care to add about this. )

[Chills]

. Another way to put it: Reality is anything you have to deal with AS IF it were reality.
I agree with that. :yes:



I repeat, most of us have no problem with the concept. It's only other people's realities that give us problems.

Interesting observation.

[SmartAZ]

Just wondering, because *I*'ve never been hurt by ANYONE and have found quite the opposite to be true: People who are hurting LONG for explanations/solutions/remedies [take your pick] that people who aren't hurting don't need.

Just remembering your embracement of Christianity, I think you described a time when YOU weren't happy, met people who WERE happy, and decided to attend Bible study with them.
Not everybody is hurt very badly. I was an atheist for a long time just because I hadn't met anybody who could clearly explain their religion to me. Christianity is especially prone to senseless believers. Very few christians can actually explain their beliefs in a way that makes sense. It appeared to me that all the christians I had met were no different from grunting savages worshipping rocks, and I refused to associate with them on that basis.

It would be more correct to say that I was lonely and met some people who were friendly. I hung around with them just because of that - I didn't believe a word of their gospel. Not a word! It helped a lot that they actually understood what they believed and could explain it very clearly. After a few months I realized that I had accepted everything they had told me, because it all fit together and it all made sense. It took a few months because they had to teach me all the principles of bible study, and I had to unlearn a few bits of crap that I had picked up from other christians. It's not hard to learn the principles, the hard part is letting go of the nonsense you learned from well-meaning people. And some people have to wait for the hurt to heal before they can even start learning.

[Plaid-Man Individual]

As for some of the things you mention like "love, hope, compassion, envy, desire, or ambition", you need to be careful not to reify these.

Was that a mistype? I really want to know what this was supposed to say. Please clarify.

Seems to me to be the perfect, most accurate word to describe his meaning in content and context.

Just as a FYI:

re·i·fy
tr.v. re·i·fied, re·i·fy·ing, re·i·fies

To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence.

[Ought Six]

You guys always forget us agnostics, lumping us in with atheists, when in fact we are an entirely different animal. Theists believe there is a God (or Gods). Atheists believe there is no god or gods. Both groups have a belief system. Agnostics are the only group that lack a belief system.

[lars]

Roger--How are we different from a very sophisticated machine?

Flint--Again, decide for yourself. Personally, I think we ARE sophisticated machines.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why is this such a toughie? The difference is that we are alive and machines are not.

[Robert]

You guys always forget us agnostics, lumping us in with atheists, when in fact we are an entirely different animal. Theists believe there is a God (or Gods). Atheists believe there is no god or gods. Both groups have a belief system. Agnostics are the only group that lack a belief system.

Agnostics believe that man is not capable of determining whether there is a ‘god’. This is there belief system.

They still have beliefs as the formation of the universe, they just don’t know if ‘god’ exists.

[Plaid-Man Individual]

You guys always forget us agnostics, lumping us in with atheists, when in fact we are an entirely different animal. Theists believe there is a God (or Gods). Atheists believe there is no god or gods. Both groups have a belief system. Agnostics are the only group that lack a belief system.

I guess I look at the definitional categorization of theist, agnostic and atheist in a slightly different manner than most:

A gnostic theist is someone who affirms that he BELIEVES that God exists and he KNOWs (i.e., is CERTAIN) that God exists.

An agnostic theist is someone who affirms that he BELIEVES that God exists, but does not KNOW (i.e. is not CERTAIN) that God exists.

An agnostic a-theist is someone who affirms that he does not BELIEVE that God exists, but does not KNOW (i.e., is not CERTAIN) that God does not exist.

An agnostic athe-ist is someone who affirms that he BELIEVES that God does not exist, but does not KNOW (i.e., is not CERTAIN) that God does not exist.

A gnostic athe-ist is someone who affirms that he BELIEVES that God does not exist and KNOWS (i.e. is CERTAIN) that God does not exist.

[SmartAZ]

"Agnostic" and "atheist" don't seem to have picked up any baggage like other words have. In this business, "baggage" means a word is used as an insulting name for some group. It then becomes a code word, implying whatever somebody hates about them, and whatever basic meaning it used to have is forgotten.

"Agnostic" means "without knowledge", plain and simple. "I am an agnostic" means "I don't know about god." Many agnostics would then explain that if there is a god, we can't know anything about him unless he reveals it to us.

"Atheist" means simply "without god". Whether there is one or not, the atheist is following his own council.

PMI's explanation seems to be accurate, but I don't think anybody really cares about such accuracy. The agnostics have already decided they don't know, the atheists have already decided they don't care, and the proselytizers only want to convert them.

BTW, the proselytizers make some effort to understand atheists and agnostics; do any of you atheists and agnostics have the slightest understanding of the proselytizers? (I'm trying not to restrict the discussion to christians, even though nearly all proselytizers are christians.)

[Chills]

do any of you atheists and agnostics have the slightest understanding of the proselytizers? )

SmartAZ

One thing I do, well I should say, I think, I understand about proselytizers. The proselytizers dont agree with each other.

[lars]

"Protheletytherth", a very difficult word for lithperth.

[Ought Six]

R:"Agnostics believe that man is not capable of determining whether there is a ‘god’. This is there belief system. They still have beliefs as the formation of the universe, they just don’t know if ‘god’ exists."False assumption. I am an agnostic, and I have no such beliefs about the 'knowability' of God. Neither do any of the other agnostics I have spoken with. Some agnostics likely believe this, but it is certainly not a requirement to fit the description.

Anyways, contrary to your claim, I have no belief system. I just do not know if there is a god or gods; or if, in fact, a god or gods exists, whether god/gods would be knowable or unknowable.

================================================================

P-MI:"An agnostic theist is someone who affirms that he BELIEVES that God exists, but does not KNOW (i.e. is not CERTAIN) that God exists."A person who believes that God exists is, by definition, *not* an agnostic. All theists have doubts at some point (even the Bible tells us this). That does not change the proper definition, which you will find in any dictionary.
----------"An agnostic a-theist is someone who affirms that he does not BELIEVE that God exists, but does not KNOW (i.e., is not CERTAIN) that God does not exist."This is the proper definition of an agnostic; no modifying adjectives needed.
----------"An agnostic athe-ist is someone who affirms that he BELIEVES that God does not exist, but does not KNOW (i.e., is not CERTAIN) that God does not exist."This person would be an atheist, not an agnostic. Again, having doubts does not change the fact that you have subscribed to a belief system by having beliefs.
----------

Making up your own definitions that conflict with accepted ones creates precisely the problem that this thread address.From The Mirriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.webster.com/):

Main Entry: ag·nos·tic

Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

++++++++++

Main Entry: the·ism

Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun

: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

- the·ist /-ist/ noun or adjective
- the·is·tic /thE-'is-tik/ also the·is·ti·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective
- the·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

++++++++++

Main Entry: athe·ist

Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun

: one who believes that there is no deity

- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective

- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

[SmartAZ]

The proselytizers dont agree with each other.
That's fairly obvious. And I grant that it's somewhat annoying. Any further thoughts on this?

[Plaid-Man Individual]

Ought Six:

I stated in my prior post, "I guess I look at the definitional categorization of theist, agnostic and atheist in a slightly different manner than most...". In that statement I think it is very clear my view encompasses more than the very limiting definition you cited from Merriam-Webster.

Let's look at another dictionary source that IMHO has a more palatable definitions of "agnostic":

From www.dictionary.com :

ag·nos·tic -- n.

1.a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
[ ][ ][ ] b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Historically, agnosticism was the philosophical doctrine that one cannot know the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of experience. It is popularly equated with religious/theistic skepticism but is not necessarily exclusive to religion.

Agnosticism may mean no more than doubt or the suspension of judgment on any question because of insufficient evidence, or it may constitute a rejection of traditional theistic tenets.

It is my interpretive understanding the agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the human mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural. Understood this way, an agnostic could also be a theist or an atheist. The former is called a fideist, one who believes in God purely on faith. The latter is sometimes accused by theists (and some others) of having faith in the non-existence of God, but that accusation is absurd and the expression meaningless.

The agnostic a-theist simply finds no compelling reason to believe that God exists. Realistically, even the "withholding of belief pending sufficient evidence" is considered a belief system; admittedly a different system than the 'belief in' or the 'no belief in' God(s), but a belief system nonetheless.

And yes, the qualifiers in my definitional categorizations are quite appropriate, accurate and very useful.

To Smart AZ:

Many of us DO care about being as accurate as possible and are always open to valid correction and/or better opinion/perspective; that is why we continually grow in our understandings, knowledge, and communication skills.

[Ought Six]

P-MI:"And yes, the qualifiers in my definitional categorizations are quite appropriate, accurate and very useful."Sorry, but they are not. You can hunt up all the dictionary definitions you wish. Webster's has been the acknowleged authority on the American English language for over 200 years, and I laid out quite clearly why many of your definitions are incorrect. But that aside, you are making up definitions that no one knows but you. What are the chances that others are going to use them as you dictate? About zero, I would say. You and your made-up definitions are merely sowing confusions.

[LizardQueen]

My thoughts on proselytizers:

It was mentioned that they often don't agree with each other. I've noticed that you can get a group of people together, hand them each a copy of the identical text, and then if you ask them to paraphrase it in their own words everyone will come up with a slightly different interpretation. This is normal, I think, as no 2 people have the same background, life experiences, reading comprehension, etc - i.e. they all have different filters and as such will come up with different interpretations.

Combine that with that they're all usually working off different source material (for example, different Bible versions) that have already been "pre-filtered" i.e. translated by men and no wonder they're all different. I once saw a really interesting comparison of the same verse from about 5 or 6 different Bible versions laid out side by side - the difference in meaning was striking. Little subtleties put a whole new wrinkle on the verse depending on which version it came out of.
I don't know if the Koran has different versions like this as well (like SmartAz, I'm trying not to restrict this to Christianity but that's the only major religion I have any familiarity with so it's hard not to).

So it's no surprise to me that there are so many different views put forth by the people who want to share them.

Other thoughts on proselytizers:
I honestly don't understand their desire to do it. Even when I was a Christian I never had the urge to do it even if commanded to - it was just never important to me to try and make other people think like me. Now that I'm older it's still not, and I will more vigorously defend my right to believe as I wish without interference.

I've noticed there seem to be different psychological "types" of proselytizers (I've seen these when I've argued with many Jehovahs Witnesses that have come to the door - hey, everyone needs a hobby ;) ).
One is the genuine believer, who really is interested in your welfare and as such will go to great lengths to try and convince you of their view, for your own good.
Another is the by-the-book type - they do it because their religion requires it of them, not so much because they are genuinely concerned for your welfare. To me it seems their heart really isn't in it, and they're doing it more to "get points" for themselves than for you.
Another is what I call the "power tripper" - these don't seem to be doing it for your own good or for their own responsibilities to the doctrine of their church but out of a desire to exert or prove power over you and prove how right they are. They can be bombastic and rude, and use their religion like a bludgeon. They don't seem to understand that that kind of behaviour isn't an effective conversion technique (though I suspect that for these folks it's far more about the bludgeoning than about any real attempt at conversion).

I have no problem with the first 2 as long as they respect a polite "no, thank you" but I have issues with this last type as they generally don't respect the no-thank-you and will push until you shut the door in their face.

One issue I've had with proselytizers is that there seems to be some hubris in a lot of them, a belief that even though I've heard it 1000 times before (I'm 40 years old, it's not like I was born yesterday) somehow they will be the one to finally get through to me.
I do wish they'd realize that what they're saying generally isn't news to me and that I've been approached 999 times before so I'm probably not interested in hearing it all again.

But I respect their right to try, as long as they respect mine to say no thanks.

LQ/Tweak

[Chills]

That's fairly obvious. And I grant that it's somewhat annoying. Any further thoughts on this?

SmartAZ-- you asked what agnostics and atheists understand about proslytizers.
All I could think of that seemed to be true is the obvious.
Beyond that I can not say I understand much about them in regards to their
believes.

I can only speak for myself I do not know or will not speculate on what other agnostics and or atheists understand etc.

[Anita]

do any of you atheists and agnostics have the slightest understanding of the proselytizers?

As *I* understand it, some sects of various religions have interpreted their sacred scripts in such a way that proselytizing is seen as a duty for the believer. The end goal [typically a form of salvation] cannot be obtained for them if they don't expend energy in this regard.

[Plaid-Man Individual]

Sorry, but they are not. You can hunt up all the dictionary definitions you wish. Webster's has been the acknowleged authority on the American English language for over 200 years, and I laid out quite clearly why many of your definitions are incorrect. But that aside, you are making up definitions that no one knows but you. What are the chances that others are going to use them as you dictate? About zero, I would say. You and your made-up definitions are merely sowing confusions.

Again, I respectfully disagree with your opinion of the aforementioned definitional categorizations listed in my post #24, and be sure what you've "laid out quite clearly" in your subsequent replies has shown nothing "incorrect"; it is just your opinion, nothing more. These definitional categorizations are quite appropriate, accurate and very useful. Obviously, on this issue we must agree to disagree!

I further find your method/approach to minimizing and/or mitigating confusion in communications by adhering to the acutely general, colloquial, nonspecific definitions of Merriam-Webster, as if they were gospel, to be extremely flawed. You seem to be advocating the philosophy of "simple is best and less confusing" where communications are concerned. IMHO vague definitions exacerbate confusion in communication. If M-W's definitions were sufficient we would not need expressions such as "weak atheist", "strong atheist", or "fundamentalist", "fideist" nor the many, many other terms used to describe the differences in theists. And, remember M-W, up until a couple of years ago, defined atheist as "someone who denies the existence of God" (sounds like an inaccurate, pro-religious definition to me).

Confusion in communication is most often caused by the lack of detailed descriptions (vague generalities), and/or inaccurate communication of ideas (whether specific or general), and/or misunderstandings caused by incorrect interpretations of communications. Further, in some cases, the reader could lack the capacity to understand the communication, or quite often just lack the desire to understand (possibly because of many unrelated factors). Hence, the more detailed and the more accurate the communication the less likely there is for confusions to occur (except in the cases of diminished capacity or lack of desire to understand).

More accurate definitions and more detailed descriptions may be viewed by some as being more complicated to understand because they address the minutia of the issue, but this is more confusing to only those unable to comprehend specificity, or to those who "prefer" the limiting levels of simplistic generalities.

The more detailed, accurate, and specific the descriptive nature of the communication the better (and less confusing). Your flawed approach wholly "sows confusions," and further, perpetuates it.

[SmartAZ]

Well, I brought up the thing about proselytizing, and I think it's about time I added my own essay. It's not really a threadjacking, since proselytizing is largely based on a lack of understanding of definitions. In other words, people don't know what they are talking about. I will speak only of christians, since that is the only group I know anything about. And I will call it "witnessing" because that's what they call it.

Christians don't really proselytize. They are commanded to preach the gospel, but they don't have to drag in believers. Most of them start on the wrong foot, thinking they are out to swell the ranks of their group, and they start before they have learned the first fact about their faith. Nevertheless, they exhibit the one identifying characteristic that most people associate with christian witnessing: boundless enthusiasm.

That is worth repeating: The one identifying characteristic that most people associate with christian witnessing is boundless enthusiasm. Yes, friends, there is a noticeable change in a person when he is born again. There is a tremendous strengthening of the personality. Peter was the first example. In the gospels he was vacillating and cowardly. One moment he says, "You will never wash my feet!" The next he says, "Not just my feet but also my hands and head!" One night he swears he will never forsake his lord, a few days later he is terrified when a scullery maid recognizes him as one of the followers. After the crucifiction he and the other disciples hide, and Peter eventually decides he may as well go back to fishing. Then, just two months later, he stands up in the middle of town and tells the jews "Hearken to my words!" and accuses them of murdering Jesus. Then he assumes leadership of the new church, with no more vacillation at all. Yes, the observeable evidence of being born again is a much stronger personality.

The other characterisitic of christian witnessing, and a very annoying one, is that they often don't know anything about their faith. They usually think they are beating the bushes for new members, and don't know for sure what the gospel is. That is a failure within the church, and it goes way back. The book of Acts records several converts to the church who tried to carry on as usual without taking the time to learn about the faith. The just continued their exorcisms, calling the name of this, whatsisname, oh yeah, this Jesus fellow, instead of whatever force they used to call. Of course it didn't work right. You can't adulterate truth and expect to get the right results. That is what is meant by the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Adultery is the offering of a mixed substance when only a pure substance is acceptable. People assume it only means illicit sex. It is typical to think that sex must be as important to God as it is to humans.)

Here is some advice for those of you who don't want to be bothered with witnessing any more: Learn their business better than they know it. Most of them can be stopped cold by just asking, "Why should I want to be born again?" They might mumble something about being made whole. "Yes, ok, what am I lacking that I need to be made whole?" They haven't learned that much yet. They feel terriffic, but they haven't yet learned why they feel that way. You will be doing them a service, because they will immediately go looking for that information, and maybe if their questions embarrass their preacher, the church will expend some effort to learn the basics and start teaching it. If that happens, you might at least get witnessed to by some people who sort of know something worth talking about!

If you really want to run circles around the witnesses, learn a few things about the bible. How To Enjoy The Bible (http://philologos.org/__eb-htetb/) was written by a very mouthy Englishman specifically to enable people to embarrass sloppy students. (Example: A preacher misread a verse, saying, "He took him, and held him, and let him go." He then stammered and mumbled for a while as he tried to come up with some explanation for that. A voice came from the congregation saying, "MY bible says he healed him!") It's amazing how many people you meet who have no idea what the bible actually says. And a great many of them are astounded to find that they can't even correctly read what's printed there.

[SmartAZ]

BTW Roger, I like your new avatar.

[Chills]

SmartAZ

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that "christians" dont know what they are talking about, in particular the newer converts.

I dont know about anyone else, but speaking for myself, I dont see that as being different from most people in general, including myself.

I think we are all in the process of learning. What I know today tomorrow I will understand a great deal more about and can honestly say that five years or even two years ago I didnt know what I was talking about.

I think it is when we stop learning that we are in trouble.

[Ought Six]

P-MI:

If you insist on using non-standard definitions that no one but you knows or understands, I am certainly not going to try and stop you. Of course, no one will have a clue what you are talking about, and they are wrong according to Webster's (your claims to the contrary notwithstanding), but since you do not seem to care about that, have at it. You have chosen categorization and erronious definitions over communication, and that is your right.