200+ Nigerian schoolgirls kindapped - culprits selling them £7 each

[braineclipse]

Has to be a quick reply to some of your points

1. Sorry but I do not accept the get out clause that athesism is the rejection of gods claims. Atheism is the belief there is no deity and therefore when discussing creation its the belief that a perfect storm of chance is responsible. I can accept your answer of don't know, now except mine that I don't know how a deity moulded creation.

2. I think you need to do either more reading on pantheism or on religion. Most religions have strong elements of pantheism within their core beliefs. I can give examples if you need.

3. Agnostics and atheists are not the same thing not even close. Agnostics are as close to theist as they are to atheists.

When I say athesism has created a hegonomy that they are more in tune with science then the theists that's exactly what I mean. hegonomy doesn't represent truth though, like I have stated repeatedly most scientific discoveries have are from people of faith.

If you wouldn't mind could you give me your definition or description of what you mean by atheism, theism, pantheism and agnosticism? I think that would be a useful part of a discussion at this point.

1. Ok, you accept my answer of "I don't know". Do you see how your answer implies a claim about the existence of a deity. That's a positive claim that needs defending, my answer of "I don't know" doesn't make a claim like that. I can obviously accept that you believe it, but I can't accept the claim as true without reason.

2. We were talking about pantheism as a description for Einstein's religious beliefs. Einstein didn't believe in a personal GHod, that seems fairly common amongst pantheists to me. This is different from the belief of most monotheists and by your words different from your beliefs. Thus you cannot use Einstein as your authority figure here. You can argue for the case of pantheism instead of your own beliefs for the sake of argument I suppose, but I don't really see the point at this time as the entire discussion so far has been about theism and atheism.

3. I haven't said they're the same thing! I've specifically said the two words describe different aspects. Atheist describes someone's (lack of) belief, agnosticism describes someone's claim to knowledge.

What I did say was that they aren't mutually exclusive, and that I identify with both terms. I'm both an agnostic and an atheist (and an anti-theist). I think you can be an agnostic and a theist too by the way. But here we're getting nowhere and fast without either common definitions for the words or an understanding of how our definitions vary.

I think this wiki article pretty much summarizes my views on this: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

I will again, since I'm both stubborn and patient, ask you for a source if you disagree with this or the definitions used. I know that a fairly common use of the word agnostic is for someone somehow in between atheism and theism, someone that neither believes or disbelieves. I don't find this definition or use of the word particularly useful.

The people that make atheists seem more connected with science are generally religious people that reject (parts of) science. For example a significant part of various populations reject evolution, almost exclusively for religious reasons. By comparison atheists look strongly identified with science. I would be perfectly happy to see more religious people reject those parts of their religion that contradicts science and accept scientific consensus as a basis for understanding the world. Would be progress. But until that happens the people you should blame for atheists looking much firmer in the pro-science camp than theists would be other believers.

 

[DTA]

If you wouldn't mind could you give me your definition or description of what you mean by atheism, theism, pantheism and agnosticism? I think that would be a useful part of a discussion at this point.

1. Ok, you accept my answer of "I don't know". Do you see how your answer implies a claim about the existence of a deity. That's a positive claim that needs defending, my answer of "I don't know" doesn't make a claim like that. I can obviously accept that you believe it, but I can't accept the claim as true without reason.

2. We were talking about pantheism as a description for Einstein's religious beliefs. Einstein didn't believe in a personal GHod, that seems fairly common amongst pantheists to me. This is different from the belief of most monotheists and by your words different from your beliefs. Thus you cannot use Einstein as your authority figure here. You can argue for the case of pantheism instead of your own beliefs for the sake of argument I suppose, but I don't really see the point at this time as the entire discussion so far has been about theism and atheism.

3. I haven't said they're the same thing! I've specifically said the two words describe different aspects. Atheist describes someone's (lack of) belief, agnosticism describes someone's claim to knowledge.

What I did say was that they aren't mutually exclusive, and that I identify with both terms. I'm both an agnostic and an atheist (and an anti-theist). I think you can be an agnostic and a theist too by the way. But here we're getting nowhere and fast without either common definitions for the words or an understanding of how our definitions vary.

I think this wiki article pretty much summarizes my views on this: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

I will again, since I'm both stubborn and patient, ask you for a source if you disagree with this or the definitions used. I know that a fairly common use of the word agnostic is for someone somehow in between atheism and theism, someone that neither believes or disbelieves. I don't find this definition or use of the word particularly useful.

The people that make atheists seem more connected with science are generally religious people that reject (parts of) science. For example a significant part of various populations reject evolution, almost exclusively for religious reasons. By comparison atheists look strongly identified with science. I would be perfectly happy to see more religious people reject those parts of their religion that contradicts science and accept scientific consensus as a basis for understanding the world. Would be progress. But until that happens the people you should blame for atheists looking much firmer in the pro-science camp than theists would be other believers.

Very quick definitions:

Atheism: the belief that there is no GHod
Theism: the belief there is is a GHod and possibly but not exclusively, the perhaps related belief of one or more religions
Pantheism: the belief that GHod is everything, nature, us, animals, creation, physics et al.
Agnosticsism: the stance that their may or May not be a GHod.

1. Ok quite, but if you are an atheist rather than an agnostic than you believe that there is no GHod and therefore in the perfect storm of chance is responsible for creation.... Prove it. Your answer of 'I don't know' only applies if you are a agnostic.

2. You don't know my beliefs so how can you make such a statement. Again I think you either should do more research into pantheism or into many religions that contain pantheism as part of their core beliefs or at the very least in to einsteins beliefs

Some quotes from memory (so may not be 100% accurate) from Einstein about GHod, please take the time to explain these.

- when the solution is simple GHod is answering
-My religion is based on the humble admiration of the illimitable spirit that reveals itself in the small details we are able to perceive in our limited and feeble minds -note from me I particularly like this one
- the human mind can not conceive the mysteries of the universe it is like a child in a library of books written in different languages, although he may not conceive he can see a plan by the author.

There are many others look them up.

3. No, that is an incomplete or at the very least not commonly used use of term agnostic, I feel that most people that would term themselves as agnostic would be non committal in whether there is a GHod or not, most atheists would say ther is no GHod, and most theists would say there is a GHod... I'm not sure how you can argue against these simple definitions that are the core of these three systems of beliefs.

As for you excuse why atheists are more connected to science I will quote (probably paraphrase) another one of einsteins contributions to this debate.

"Science with out religion is lame, and faith without science is blind"

I whole heardtedly agree with it.

 

[DTA]

In relation to the wiki article... I don't really know where to start. All I will say is that is not the common use of the terms stated. But if you believe in the definitions contained within, please change where I say atheist to 'strong atheists' although it seems like a get out clause for those who previously claimed to be atheist and now realise that they to have the burden of proof.

 

[JerusalemMan]

This was a curious article of some relevance here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27554640

 

[DTA]

This was a curious article of some relevance here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27554640

Interesting, what's your views on the article or wider debate in this thread?

 

[NaijaSpurs]

What really makes me feel gutted is that I just know these girls have been repeatedly raped over the past month, we simply cannot begin to comprehend how traumatised they will be from this. How many of them will contract AIDS or become pregnant?

 

[braineclipse]

Very quick definitions:

Atheism: the belief that there is no GHod
Theism: the belief there is is a GHod and possibly but not exclusively, the perhaps related belief of one or more religions
Pantheism: the belief that GHod is everything, nature, us, animals, creation, physics et al.
Agnosticsism: the stance that their may or May not be a GHod.

1. Ok quite, but if you are an atheist rather than an agnostic than you believe that there is no GHod and therefore in the perfect storm of chance is responsible for creation.... Prove it. Your answer of 'I don't know' only applies if you are a agnostic.

2. You don't know my beliefs so how can you make such a statement. Again I think you either should do more research into pantheism or into many religions that contain pantheism as part of their core beliefs or at the very least in to einsteins beliefs

Some quotes from memory (so may not be 100% accurate) from Einstein about GHod, please take the time to explain these.

- when the solution is simple GHod is answering
-My religion is based on the humble admiration of the illimitable spirit that reveals itself in the small details we are able to perceive in our limited and feeble minds -note from me I particularly like this one
- the human mind can not conceive the mysteries of the universe it is like a child in a library of books written in different languages, although he may not conceive he can see a plan by the author.

There are many others look them up.

3. No, that is an incomplete or at the very least not commonly used use of term agnostic, I feel that most people that would term themselves as agnostic would be non committal in whether there is a GHod or not, most atheists would say ther is no GHod, and most theists would say there is a GHod... I'm not sure how you can argue against these simple definitions that are the core of these three systems of beliefs.

As for you excuse why atheists are more connected to science I will quote (probably paraphrase) another one of einsteins contributions to this debate.

"Science with out religion is lame, and faith without science is blind"

I whole heardtedly agree with it.

1. No. Not by my definition of the word atheist, not by the definition most atheists I know of uses, not by the definition used by the public atheists I've heard or read anything from. You can keep insisting that only your definition of atheist is correct and that if I self identify as an atheist I must adhere to that, but this simply isn't the case. I've described my views repeatedly, you can't just keep claiming that I must believe something else.

2. You're right, you haven't shared much about your religious beliefs. Thus I asked "are you now arguing for pantheism" earlier. What you did say was that you believed in a personal relationship with GHod. What I've claimed is that Einstein didn't believe in a personal GHod and that it seems a fairly common description of pantheists includes this lack of a personal GHod. Thus I don't think you can rely on Einstein as an authority for what I think are your theistic beliefs.

I'm not looking to get involved in some race to Einstein here. Particularly not based on paraphrased quotes without a source documentation. To summarize this is from a wiki article on his beliefs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including "agnostic",[4] "religious nonbeliever"[5] and a "pantheistic"[6] believer in "Spinoza's GHod."[7]

Those are attributed and sourced. If you use words like those to describe yourself I think our argument is a strange one. Where those descriptions differ from your impressions I will again ask for a source. Particularly seeing as another part of that article contains an excerpt from a letter Einstein wrote fairly late in his life:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal GHod and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[9]

I would say that puts it pretty clearly.

3. I've stated my opinions and what words I use to describe them. I'm far from the only one using those words in that manner and it's in accordance with dictionary definitions for those words. That's how I can disagree with your "simple definitions".

My sample size is small and I haven't seen any studies on it, but my impression is that most atheists have a similar view to myself. At the very least it's a large portion of those self identifying as atheists. Either way I'm not really interested in arguing something I don't believe in at this point and I think I've made my beliefs pretty clear. I reject the GHod claims because there's no evidence, that makes me an atheist.

Again, just to make it clear that my views isn't some minority view within atheism, Christopher Hitchens:

"That atheist proposition is the following - most of the time. It may not be said that there is no GHod, it may be said that there is no reason to think that there is one."

This is, as far as I can tell, the mainstream atheistic view. If you wish to continue debating what it means to be an atheist rather than my views please point me towards the public atheists or known atheistic thinkers that use a different definition before again claiming that to be an atheist I must think something that I don't.

 

[braineclipse]

In relation to the wiki article... I don't really know where to start. All I will say is that is not the common use of the terms stated. But if you believe in the definitions contained within, please change where I say atheist to 'strong atheists' although it seems like a get out clause for those who previously claimed to be atheist and now realise that they to have the burden of proof.

I agree that my definitions for agnosticism isn't as mainstream as my definition for atheism. But it's fairly commonly used, and one that makes more sense to me and one that describes my thoughts on the issue.

Get out clause? These are my views as I have expressed several times. These are views shared by many much more intelligent people than myself, views that have been argued for and defended extensively by serious people in serious settings. Viewpoints that to my knowledge no rational argument or evidence counters - and I have spent considerable time looking. These are viewpoints held by people of integrity and they're no longer views held only by a small minority. These views are not a ****ing get out clause and the fact that you dismiss them as such is something you should consider re-evaluating if you like to think of yourself as intellectually honest.

 

[braineclipse]

This was a curious article of some relevance here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27554640

His description of humanism as "not positive but negative" made cringe. That's some statement to make without any supporting argument or evidence.

I do think we should look to learn from all cultures, movements, religions etc and try to bring the best of each with us. I do believe that some of the things he talks about like connection and community are important, but I see no reason to think that religion offers this in a better way than other options.

I do like his rejection of the supernatural though, progress at least. If all religious people were like the Quakers the world would be a better place. And I do agree with his criticism of the spiritual crowd.

 

[SteveAWOL]

8 months on, still no sign of rescue for these poor schoolkids and now it looks like these terrorists are using girls for suicide bombings.

@thetimes: Boko Haram uses girls aged ten as suicide bombers http://thetim.es/1w9d7LS

@DanHannanMEP: Monstrous as the Paris abominations are, let's not lose sight of the scale of Boko Haram's atrocities in Nigeria.

@Telegraph: Boko Haram controls about 20,000 square miles of territory - an area the size of Belgium http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ini-Islamic-State-with-its-own-territory.html …

 

[Dorothy]

It begs the question why nobody thought to have a whip and buy them back?

 

[SteveAWOL]