Do you believe in God?

[BHRxRacer]

No its not.

Define Belief then.

That nothing you can find agrees with you doesn't automatically mean that all those sources are wrong, it could mean that you are wrong.

Are you ****ing kidding me?

Last month in the Islam thread, somebody posted what was supposed to be a quote from the Quran and it was so butchered I couldn't read the half of it. That's not my opinion, that's a ****ing fact.

There's other Arab members on here, would you like them to confirm?

You mean the one that every source says relates to a deity?

Are they also all wrong?

I've linked you TWO ar.wikipedia links that both confirm what I said.

You linked only one, the en.wikipedia version. Do you not see what it contradicts the Arabic one??

My favourite part is etymology, almost completely ****ing made up. There is no mention of the word deen actually meaning DEBT. That's how/why they label "religion" deen in Arabic, because if you have worldviews etc they basically refer to your debt to the universe. The word debt/deen, might have come from the Herbrew word yes, that's the only thing close to accuracy in that article.


Oh the other thing you linked isn't defning deen/religion, it's defining SPECIFICALLY the deen of Islam, or the religion of islam.

Try again.

And in doing so (unless the children are deities) you would be incorrect.

No.

Which is not you and I fail to see how its worse.

I've also not asked you to validate who your friend is, I've asked you to validate his claims and what qualifies him to make them, which is a rather different thing. For example if he is a published author then that should be rather easy, as his published work will do the job quite well.

It's worse because if it's me, it'd at least be up to ME to show my credentials. It's rude/silly on your behalf to ask that enough. When it's a friend, the rudeness would fall on ME for asking them to scan official documentation so I could show it to a bunch of guys on the internet.

He's not an author. He has an Msc n political science and a minor in History or something. He would also not appreciate me telling you his name or anything about him, for the same reason I do not about myself.

Did I use a word in an other language that English?

You asked me to define the word with no mention of language. YOU ASKED ME TO DEFINE WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY THAT WORD in BHRxRacer world.

Next time be more specific and ask "Define the word religion, as you think it means in English".

That however doesn't change the fact that every source available that I have found for the Arabic also includes a deity, if you have one that differs then please supply it, explaining why all the others are incorrect.

The English wikipedia article that contradicts the Arabic one, or the article literally defining the religion of Islam and not "Religion" itself? you're killing me.


Please link me all the sources that you can find so that we at least know what we're dealing with.

I work for a large multi-national company, we have a number of offices in the Middle East, including one in Dubai that also runs all our training in the Middle East (in both English and Arabic - hence the professional translation services). I mentor the training manager in that office and have a conference call weekly with him.

I hope that professional translation firm are competent then. I don't think you read what I said. You know how a lot of English speaking people don't actually understand proper English? Arabs are generally worse, and it's such a complex language that most non-Arabs that learn English or work as interpreters often just use common definitions unknowning it's actually not Arabic. Such as the word "Google". It's technically an English word now, right? Most non-Arab professional translators are also unaware of different accents/dialects. I've met one that thinks زلمه(pronounced Zalameh/Zalamah) is Arabic for "man". It's not, it's Lebanese slang for "man", what they commonly use to refer to as a man. They use that word because it actually means trunk (like an elephant's, referring to a man's penis).

Would you like to see pictures of the view from the office? Would you like the address of the office? Would you like to see the view from the Window of my preferred hotel when I travel to the office? Would you like to know the name of the bar I visit when out their? Would you like me to supply visa scans to a nominated member of staff to show the last time I visited?

No, unlike you, I'm capable of taking somebody's word for it.

A reminder of the AUP is not a threat, and based on your track record its a reminder you need.

You can do that in a nicer way. Not in a form of threat.

All of which is unsurprisingly uncited.

If famine can slip words into definitions that change the whole definition...

No matter, let's stick with the Arabic bit because your denial/stubbornness is rather amusing.

Yes it does, and you have yet to provide a single source that states otherwise.

I will also ask let them loose on the Arabic Wiki, we will see how many references to God and/or deities it contains.

I can't wait. In the mean time

أصل الكلمة
الدِين أو الدِيانة, من دان خضع وذل ودان بكذا فهي ديانة وهو دين، وتديّن به فهو متديّن, إذا أطلق يراد به: ما يتديّن به البشر، ويدين به من اعتقاد وسلوك؛ بمعنى آخر، هو طاعة المرء والتزامه لما يعتنقه من فكر ومبادئ. الدين في مصطلح اللغة العربية: هي العادة والشأن. والتدين: الخضوع والاستعباد، ينبني على الدين المكافأة والجزاء، أي يجازى الإنسان بفعله وبحسب ما عمل عن طريق الحساب. ومنه صفة الديّان التي يطلقها الناس على خالقهم؛ وجمع كلمة دين: أديان. فيقال: دانَ بديانة وتدين بها، فهو متديّن، والتديّن: إذا وكل الإنسان أموره إلى دينه.

الدين يتمثل بالطاعة والانقياد، فرجال الدين: هم المطيعون المنقادون، كما يُحمّل الدين الإنسان ما يكره، ومن هذا الباب تأتي كلمة الدَين (القرض): إِما بالأخذ أو العطاء ما كان له أجل، كما أجله الجزاء والحساب والعبادة والطاعة والمواظبة والقهر والغلبة والاستعلاء والسلطان والملك والحكم والتسيير والتدبير والتوحيد، وجميع ما يتعبد به للإله، من مذاهب وورع وإجبار، فالإله هو الديّان: أي القهار، والقاضي، والحاكم، والسائس، والحاسب، والمجازي الذي لا يضيع عملاً، بل يجزِي بالخيرِ والشرِ. ففي الديانة: عزة ومذلة، وطاعة وعصيان، وعادة في الخير أو الشر، والابتلاء.

See that word, قرض? It means debt. No mention of that in the English Wikipedia despite its importance. Hilarious. Whoever edited/wrote that English wiki page is not an Arab, I guarantee it.



I'm not sure how old they are or what their education is, you may ask other Arab members to translate that. Specifically the bold parts up there. You'll find them in the middle east GT academy thread.



OH and be careful when the "professionals" translate it. They can just look at the word "deen" and say oh it means there's a deity. Replace it(anything with in Italic) with X, for more accurate results.

الدِين أو الدِيانة, من دان خضع وذل ودان بكذا فهي ديانة وهو دين، وتديّن به فهو متديّن, إذا أطلق يراد به: ما يتديّن به البشر، ويدين به من اعتقاد وسلوك؛ بمعنى آخر، هو طاعة المرء والتزامه لما يعتنقه من فكر ومبادئ

Last sentence translation: In other words, obedience to one's beliefs regarding views and principles.

Have them translate the last sentence please

Why do I need a hard copy, provide me with the author and title that will be more than enough for me to provide to our translation team.

Perhaps you're not aware that some of our university textbooks are written by the professors themselves and not sold anywhere except the university, and to students taking that course.

Doesn't matter, it's pretty similar to the Arabic wiki anyway.

No, they are not. They believe that gods may exist. They believe that evidence cannot.

If you really think so then I think our problem would be your lack of understanding of English or logic, not mine.


"willing to concede that gods may exist" and "Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it."

If they're willing to concede that gods may exist, how come if evidence were presented to them (such as god himself coming down to stare them in the face), they would still deny it? Which one is it? This is a genuine question I honestly cannot see how you don't understand that.

edit

Really, if they're willing to concede, why not concede when evidence presents itself? When will they concede then?

From a scientific view, it's a slightly ass-backwards sort of concept, but you're not dealing with people who necessarily subscribe to a scientific worldview. An omnipotent being could conceivably make sure that no evidence of himself ever reached lesser beings, and so it's at least internally logically consistent.

Because they believe that evidence of a god or gods cannot exist, they would deny any evidence of such gods as false.

The same thing can be seen with Russell's Teapot. Suppose one were to suggest that it was possible that there was a teapot there, but that we could never really know (for whatever crazy, illogical idea they want). Any evidence that you were to provide them of a teapot would be dismissed as a hoax, or a conspiracy, or whatever. They might accept that there could be a teapot there, but you couldn't provide them with information about it because you would be breaking their worldview. They could be floating in space in front of it, and they'd probably be speculating that they were in the Matrix or some such bollocks to explain why there wasn't really a teapot.

Or they could just change their mind, but then they wouldn't be an Imari/Agnostic.

Let's try another thing. Match the sentences to the following words. Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism.

[ ] on a scale from 0 to 10, one believes 10/10 that a god exists.
[ ] on a scale from 0 to 10, one believes 1-9/10 that a god exists.
[ ] on a scale from 0 to 10, one believes 0/10 that a god exists.


edit

@Scaff
I would also like you to know that Traditional/proper Arabic, is not spoken in any Arab country. Each region or country have a distinct dialect/variation/accent of Arabic. So much so that often they don't understand each other at all. Because of that, a lot of mix-ups happen when defining words.

 

[Famine]

Let's try another thing. Match the sentences to the following words. Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism.

[ ] on a scale from 0 to 10, one believes 10/10 that a god exists.
[ ] on a scale from 0 to 10, one believes 1-9/10 that a god exists.
[ ] on a scale from 0 to 10, one believes 0/10 that a god exists.

Theism, theism, theism.

The last one being the nontheism subset of theism.

 

[Danoff]

[ ] on a scale from 0 to 10, one believes 10/10 that a god exists.
[ ] on a scale from 0 to 10, one believes 1-9/10 that a god exists.
[ ] on a scale from 0 to 10, one believes 0/10 that a god exists.

[ ] on a scale from 10 to 10, does not believe either that god exists or that god does not exist.

 

[mistersafeway]

[ ] on a scale from 10 to 10, does not believe either that god exists or that god does not exist.

My thoughts exactly. How BHRxRacer can't grasp the relatively simple concept that not everyone believes in something is astonishing. The more he posts, the more convinced I am that he's either trolling, so deeply into a religion that the mere mention of not believing terrifies him, or that he's the only one here who qualifies as non-religious on his personal (and quite offensive) scale.

 

[DQuaN]

My thoughts exactly. How BHRxRacer can't grasp the relatively simple concept that not everyone believes in something is astonishing. The more he posts, the more convinced I am that he's either trolling, so deeply into a religion that the mere mention of not believing terrifies him, or that he's the only one here who qualifies as non-religious on his personal (and quite offensive) scale.

Exactly. Most rational people will stop and think after they have been told they're wrong by 20-30 people. Not him. He won't budge. And then he has the guile to call other people arrogant!

I wonder what the Arabic word for irony is...

 

[BHRxRacer]

[ ] on a scale from 10 to 10, does not believe either that god exists or that god does not exist.

That's the logical equivalent of of the middle option.

I believe that I don't believe or disbelieve that a god exists.

What am I?

Theism, theism, theism.

The last one being the nontheism subset of theism.

 

[Scaff]

Define Belief then.

In basic terms it is the belief that something is true without the requirement/burden of proof, in the specific context of this thread its religious conviction.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/belief

Are you ****ing kidding me?

Last month in the Islam thread, somebody posted what was supposed to be a quote from the Quran and it was so butchered I couldn't read the half of it. That's not my opinion, that's a ****ing fact.

There's other Arab members on here, would you like them to confirm?

First and foremost drop the attitude.

I also find it rather strange that you seem to be saying that under no circumstances could you be wrong at all? Are you seriously claiming that you are utterly infallible in this area, and if so what qualifies you in that regard?

I've linked you TWO ar.wikipedia links that both confirm what I said.

And both of which also specifically mention deities.

You linked only one, the en.wikipedia version. Do you not see what it contradicts the Arabic one??

Actually I linked to two pieces.

My favourite part is etymology, almost completely ****ing made up. There is no mention of the word deen actually meaning DEBT. That's how/why they label "religion" deen in Arabic, because if you have worldviews etc they basically refer to your debt to the universe. The word debt/deen, might have come from the Herbrew word yes, that's the only thing close to accuracy in that article.

So lets see your citations that back that up with no mention of deities, as its seems a lot to me as if you are taking a word that can have different meanings based on context and using it to imply something it doesn't mean.

Oh the other thing you linked isn't defning deen/religion, it's defining SPECIFICALLY the deen of Islam, or the religion of islam.

That rather contradicts yourself, given that you've repeatedly said that every worldview is a religion?

It's worse because if it's me, it'd at least be up to ME to show my credentials. It's rude/silly on your behalf to ask that enough. When it's a friend, the rudeness would fall on ME for asking them to scan official documentation so I could show it to a bunch of guys on the internet.

He's not an author. He has an Msc n political science and a minor in History or something. He would also not appreciate me telling you his name or anything about him, for the same reason I do not about myself.

Then please explain why we should take it at face value?

You asked me to define the word with no mention of language. YOU ASKED ME TO DEFINE WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY THAT WORD in BHRxRacer world.

Next time be more specific and ask "Define the word religion, as you think it means in English".

To be blunt this is an English language site with a requirement to post in English, as such that should be taken as read. Perhaps you should have explained what your understanding of it is in Arabic and how that may differ in English and how/if the Arabic can be taken to offer different meaning based on context.

I hope that professional translation firm are competent then. I don't think you read what I said. You know how a lot of English speaking people don't actually understand proper English? Arabs are generally worse, and it's such a complex language that most non-Arabs that learn English or work as interpreters often just use common definitions unknowning it's actually not Arabic. Such as the word "Google". It's technically an English word now, right? Most non-Arab professional translators are also unaware of different accents/dialects. I've met one that thinks زلمه(pronounced Zalameh/Zalamah) is Arabic for "man". It's not, it's Lebanese slang for "man", what they commonly use to refer to as a man. They use that word because it actually means trunk (like an elephant's, referring to a man's penis).


No, unlike you, I'm capable of taking somebody's word for it.

So in a nutshell it doesn't actually matter as you will simply say they don't understand it/have misinterpreted it.

Odd that you are quite happy to say that about others but earlier claimed infallibility for yourself in this area! What qualifies you to be so bold in that regard again?

If famine can slip words into definitions that change the whole definition...

Oh I do hope you can back that claim up.

See that word, قرض? It means debt. No mention of that in the English Wikipedia despite its importance. Hilarious. Whoever edited/wrote that English wiki page is not an Arab, I guarantee it.

This one was and quite clearly (again) makes the link between deity and religion.

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IC0707-3329

(Oh and you must like that one - it specifically mentions debt)

I'm not sure how old they are or what their education is, you may ask other Arab members to translate that. Specifically the bold parts up there. You'll find them in the middle east GT academy thread.

OH and be careful when the "professionals" translate it. They can just look at the word "deen" and say oh it means there's a deity. Replace it(anything with in Italic) with X, for more accurate results.

الدِين أو الدِيانة, من دان خضع وذل ودان بكذا فهي ديانة وهو دين، وتديّن به فهو متديّن, إذا أطلق يراد به: ما يتديّن به البشر، ويدين به من اعتقاد وسلوك؛ بمعنى آخر، هو طاعة المرء والتزامه لما يعتنقه من فكر ومبادئ

Last sentence translation: In other words, obedience to one's beliefs regarding views and principles.

Have them translate the last sentence please

Given your insistence that everyone but you seems to be a fallible idiot who will certainly get it wrong I see little point at all. Rather I think the focus should be on the one making the claim that Atheism is a religion, a claim that you have not backed up at all with anything other than 'I say so because I'm the only one who can get this right'.

 

[Famine]

That's the logical equivalent of of the middle option.

Nope. The middle option requires belief. @Danoff's option does not.

I believe that I don't believe or disbelieve that a god exists.

What am I?

Agnostic.

Is there something confusing about the answer?

 

[huskeR32]

It's mainly my issue here. The names, or terms you guys are using to describe your beliefs. Just because it's common to use a word for a certain meaning, does not mean it's correct or exclusive to that meaning. I'd let you get away with it if you can at least use the deal with it argument. Like, "OH it's how people are using that word now, most people know what we mean so deal with it". What I can't accept is @Famine using specifically instead of commonly when defining such words.

Let's just focus on this bit. You're absolutely right. A lot of words have meanings that can vary wildly from person to person, especially when taking into account people from different cultures, different native languages, etc. So, in order to bridge the gap and still effectively communicate, people need to be willing to settle on a definition and stick with it. Maybe that changes from one situation to the next, as the context and the people that you're conversing with change. But within each individual discussion, real communication only takes place if all parties are on the same page concerning the key concepts at hand.

So, how should it be determined which definition is to be used in any particular conversation? Glad you asked! I think most of us can agree that if there's large-scale consensus in the group, that's a good place to start. In this case, Imari's definitions...

An atheist does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, but accepts that there could be such evidence. Were it to be presented to them, they would revise their opinion (and be somewhat embarrassed, probably).

An agnostic does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, and believes that no such evidence can or will exist even if a god or gods were to exist. Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it.

A non-theist does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, and believes that no such evidence can or will exist because there is no god or gods. Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it.

...are agreed upon by several people in this thread. To name a few: Famine, dylansan, Liquid, myself, and of course, Imari. So, there are at least five people in agreement, versus one person who disagrees. Just for the sake of making effective discussion as easy as possible, it's wise to strongly consider accepting those definitions, at least within this particular conversation. To suggest that we all discard our shared understanding in favor of yours is, frankly, astoundingly arrogant.

If we add to that the fact that all five people in agreement with those terms are actually atheists themselves*, then the case for settling on those definitions gets even stronger. If you'll permit me, I'm going to make an analogy:

Many, many people use the word "transmission" to refer to a "transaxle". This happens often enough that you could easily get away with it in everyday conversation. However, if I happened to be speaking with a group of mechanics, I wouldn't insist on doing so. Within that context, I would recognize that my incorrect use of the word, as commonly accepted as it may be, was ineffective when speaking with a group of people who use those terms often on a daily basis, and all agree that their use of the word was correct, and that mine was not.

Point being, of course, that when conversing with a group of atheists, who all agree on the same definition of that term, and to whom that term applies directly to, it's much more efficient to use their definition of the word, even if you disagree with it. At least while you're participating in that particular conversation. To try and force everyone else to use your definition, when you stand alone in it, and when the term doesn't apply to you**, is astoundingly arrogant.

Thankfully, all of what I just babbled about is usually just understood, and we can all discuss things without explicitly going through this process every time. Which makes me wonder why you insist on trying to force your definitions on the rest of us. The only thing I can think of is that you're trying to avoid the conversation that would take place if we all could manage to get on the same page about these definitions. Intellectual cowardice, in other words. Certainly not the first time it's shown up in this thread.

* - At least, I think they've all explicitly stated as much at some point. If not, then I apologize to any of you who aren't.

** - At least, I can't recall you ever identifying yourself as subscribing to what we all call "atheism." Since you don't even think it's a legitimate thing, I think it's a safe assumption that it doesn't apply to you.

 

[Danoff]

Let's just focus on this bit. You're absolutely right. A lot of words have meanings that can vary wildly from person to person, especially when taking into account people from different cultures, different native languages, etc. So, in order to bridge the gap and still effectively communicate, people need to be willing to settle on a definition and stick with it. Maybe that changes from one situation to the next, as the context and the people that you're conversing with change. But within each individual discussion, real communication only takes place if all parties are on the same page concerning the key concepts at hand.

So, how should it be determined which definition is to be used in any particular conversation? Glad you asked! I think most of us can agree that if there's large-scale consensus in the group, that's a good place to start. In this case, Imari's definitions...



...are agreed upon by several people in this thread. To name a few: Famine, dylansan, Liquid, myself, and of course, Imari. So, there are at least five people in agreement, versus one person who disagrees. Just for the sake of making effective discussion as easy as possible, it's wise to strongly consider accepting those definitions, at least within this particular conversation. To suggest that we all discard our shared understanding in favor of yours is, frankly, astoundingly arrogant.

If we add to that the fact that all five people in agreement with those terms are actually atheists themselves*, then the case for settling on those definitions gets even stronger. If you'll permit me, I'm going to make an analogy:

Many, many people use the word "transmission" to refer to a "transaxle". This happens often enough that you could easily get away with it in everyday conversation. However, if I happened to be speaking with a group of mechanics, I wouldn't insist on doing so. Within that context, I would recognize that my incorrect use of the word, as commonly accepted as it may be, was ineffective when speaking with a group of people who use those terms often on a daily basis, and all agree that their use of the word was correct, and that mine was not.

Point being, of course, that when conversing with a group of atheists, who all agree on the same definition of that term, and to whom that term applies directly to, it's much more efficient to use their definition of the word, even if you disagree with it. At least while you're participating in that particular conversation. To try and force everyone else to use your definition, when you stand alone in it, and when the term doesn't apply to you**, is astoundingly arrogant.

Thankfully, all of what I just babbled about is usually just understood, and we can all discuss things without explicitly going through this process every time. Which makes me wonder why you insist on trying to force your definitions on the rest of us. The only thing I can think of is that you're trying to avoid the conversation that would take place if we all could manage to get on the same page about these definitions. Intellectual cowardice, in other words. Certainly not the first time it's shown up in this thread.

* - At least, I think they've all explicitly stated as much at some point. If not, then I apologize to any of you who aren't.

** - At least, I can't recall you ever identifying yourself as subscribing to what we all call "atheism." Since you don't even think it's a legitimate thing, I think it's a safe assumption that it doesn't apply to you.

You said that much more thoroughly than I did.

I cannot believe we're still talking about the difference between atheism and non-theism. Can we all just agree that these different concepts exist and allow ourselves to use these words to represent those concepts in this discussion?

 

[BHRxRacer]

In basic terms it is the belief that something is true without the requirement/burden of proof, in the specific context of this thread its religious conviction.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/belief

OHH so we're dealing with context now, and not technicalities. Okay.

For the record, it says: An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof:

ESPECIALLY, one without proof. ESPECIALLY, but not exclusively. There you go.

I also find it rather strange that you seem to be saying that under no circumstances could you be wrong at all? Are you seriously claiming that you are utterly infallible in this area, and if so what qualifies you in that regard?

There are things I am not wrong about, and will not accept anybody saying otherwise, yes. 1+1=2, I'm infallible with that one for sure.

Such things about the Arabic language, I'm very qualified because like I TOLD YOU (but you cannot take my word for it), I have taken Arabic courses and aced them all. I was always the teacher's pet in school in university in Arabic classes(except the last one, she hated how I was always late, despite it being the driver's fault). I also TOLD YOU that I've worked as a translator and interpreter, and have met a lot in that field. Just at the Bahrain Grand Prix, I met a Russian linguist with PHD and even he had some flaws in his (admittedly not well) Arabic.

I can also tell you that the Arabic language is a sub-field where BOTH my parents are professionals. I'm beginning to get very annoyed at having to publicly state things about my personal life. That's enough.

And both of which also specifically mention deities.

OF COURSE they do. They mention deity when they say that "commonly referring to a belief in deity". OH NOOZZZ! LOOK IT SAYS DEITY.

Just because you saw the word there, doesn't mean it's part of the definition or etymology.

Actually I linked to two pieces.

One of which talking about Islam, not religion per se. Doesn't count, completely irrelevant.

So lets see your citations that back that up with no mention of deities, as its seems a lot to me as if you are taking a word that can have different meanings based on context and using it to imply something it doesn't mean.

The wikipedia page is more than enough.

That rather contradicts yourself, given that you've repeatedly said that every worldview is a religion?

??? Okay? Every world view is a religion. Islam is a world view that involves a deity, but a worldview non the less. Thus, Islam is a world view.

What's your problem with that? Explain how it's a contradiction.

Then please explain why we should take it at face value?

Because this is an internet forum, you either take it or you don't. It goes both ways.

To be blunt this is an English language site with a requirement to post in English, as such that should be taken as read. Perhaps you should have explained what your understanding of it is in Arabic and how that may differ in English and how/if the Arabic can be taken to offer different meaning based on context.

No. If you ask me to define Delicious, I'll answer you with "Pizza". I'm sure that's not what you'll find in the English dictionary(or any other, for any language), but it's my personal definition (and everyone has one). That's what you asked for. Again, that's your mistake. If you wanted to know what I think the English definition is, you should've been more specific.

So in a nutshell it doesn't actually matter as you will simply say they don't understand it/have misinterpreted it.

It would matter if I can tell that they're at least professionals, correct their mistake, you relay it to them and hear back.

Odd that you are quite happy to say that about others but earlier claimed infallibility for yourself in this area! What qualifies you to be so bold in that regard again?

Like I said, some things in Arabic are 1+1=2. If they disagree, they're wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. It's not that I'm infallible.

Oh I do hope you can back that claim up.

Just ask him? Or go back a few posts back, really.

His only defense is that the word "religion" doesn't change the meaning, and that's because he's using the common definition of it (claiming there is only one).

This one was and quite clearly (again) makes the link between deity and religion.

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IC0707-3329

(Oh and you must like that one - it specifically mentions debt)

OH I love it. I could be wrong, but isn't this the same website that the Finnish guy used in the Islam thread that was full of butchered Quran? Oh well, let's pretend it's legit.

On that source specifically, he talks about Islam. In the middle, acknowledges that religion doesn't/didn't necessarily involve a deity. Rather, a way of life.

Proof that he's talking about Islam:
as one considers that we are essentially accountable beings who come into this world with a debt to fulfill, a debt due to God-a debt that grows as we mature into adults, charged with volition and discernment. Daily in our prayers, we recite that God is Malik Yawm al-Deen: Master of the Day of Judgment- a day in which all debts are settled,

So no, the parts where he mentions a deity he's talking about the religion of Islam, not the word "religion" itself. I don't see how you can't make that distinction

Try again.

Given your insistence that everyone but you seems to be a fallible idiot who will certainly get it wrong I see little point at all. Rather I think the focus should be on the one making the claim that Atheism is a religion, a claim that you have not backed up at all with anything other than 'I say so because I'm the only one who can get this right'.

OH god just have them translate this part from the Wiki page:
بمعنى آخر، هو طاعة المرء والتزامه لما يعتنقه من فكر ومبادئ

@SalmanBH @sems4arsenal

Help? Can you please translate that for him? I don't know how old you or, or how qualified to discuss everything here, but just translate that Arabic bit. بمعنى آخر، هو طاعة المرء والتزامه لما يعتنقه من فكر ومبادئ

Thanks in advance.

Nope.
The middle option requires belief.

It does have a belief.

I'll just keep repeating this forever then.

Agnostic.

According to @Imari definition, agnostic implies that even if evidence were presented to the existence of god, I would still not believe a god exists.

In that case, no I'm not agnostic.

Is there something confusing about the answer

All of it, really :/

Let's just focus on this bit. You're absolutely right. A lot of words have meanings that can vary wildly from person to person, especially when taking into account people from different cultures, different native languages, etc. So, in order to bridge the gap and still effectively communicate, people need to be willing to settle on a definition and stick with it. Maybe that changes from one situation to the next, as the context and the people that you're conversing with change. But within each individual discussion, real communication only takes place if all parties are on the same page concerning the key concepts at hand.

So, how should it be determined which definition is to be used in any particular conversation? Glad you asked! I think most of us can agree that if there's large-scale consensus in the group, that's a good place to start. In this case, Imari's definitions...



...are agreed upon by several people in this thread. To name a few: Famine, dylansan, Liquid, myself, and of course, Imari. So, there are at least five people in agreement, versus one person who disagrees. Just for the sake of making effective discussion as easy as possible, it's wise to strongly consider accepting those definitions, at least within this particular conversation. To suggest that we all discard our shared understanding in favor of yours is, frankly, astoundingly arrogant.

If we add to that the fact that all five people in agreement with those terms are actually atheists themselves*, then the case for settling on those definitions gets even stronger. If you'll permit me, I'm going to make an analogy:

Many, many people use the word "transmission" to refer to a "transaxle". This happens often enough that you could easily get away with it in everyday conversation. However, if I happened to be speaking with a group of mechanics, I wouldn't insist on doing so. Within that context, I would recognize that my incorrect use of the word, as commonly accepted as it may be, was ineffective when speaking with a group of people who use those terms often on a daily basis, and all agree that their use of the word was correct, and that mine was not.

Point being, of course, that when conversing with a group of atheists, who all agree on the same definition of that term, and to whom that term applies directly to, it's much more efficient to use their definition of the word, even if you disagree with it. At least while you're participating in that particular conversation. To try and force everyone else to use your definition, when you stand alone in it, and when the term doesn't apply to you**, is astoundingly arrogant.

Thankfully, all of what I just babbled about is usually just understood, and we can all discuss things without explicitly going through this process every time. Which makes me wonder why you insist on trying to force your definitions on the rest of us. The only thing I can think of is that you're trying to avoid the conversation that would take place if we all could manage to get on the same page about these definitions. Intellectual cowardice, in other words. Certainly not the first time it's shown up in this thread.

* - At least, I think they've all explicitly stated as much at some point. If not, then I apologize to any of you who aren't.

** - At least, I can't recall you ever identifying yourself as subscribing to what we all call "atheism." Since you don't even think it's a legitimate thing, I think it's a safe assumption that it doesn't apply to you.

If Imari's definition are agreed upon, how come @Famine said I'm agnostic?



"An agnostic does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, and believes that no such evidence can or will exist even if a god or gods were to exist. Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it."

See that last sentence? That's not true for me. Were such evidence be presented to me, I would not deny it.

 

[huskeR32]

If Imari's definition are agreed upon, how come @Famine said I'm agnostic?

Why are you asking me? He said it. If I had to guess, it would be because you said this:

I believe that I don't believe or disbelieve that a god exists.

The most logical reason that someone would say that would be:

An agnostic does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, and believes that no such evidence can or will exist even if a god or gods were to exist. Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it.

It adds up pretty squarely to me.

See that last sentence? That's not true for me. Were such evidence be presented to me, I would not deny it.

Then you're an atheist. At least you are according to the consensus of the current participants in this thread, all of whom personally subscribe to that belief. For the reasons I already outlined, it would be astoundingly arrogant of you to not get on board with using "atheist" that way.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Then you're an atheist. At least you are according to the consensus of the current participants in this thread, all of whom personally subscribe to that belief. For the reasons I already outlined, it would be astoundingly arrogant of you to not get on board with using "atheist" that way.

That's been my point all along. From my point of view, I find it astonishingly arrogant of most of you not to get on board with using "agnostic" instead of "atheist".

That, and that I'll never put myself in the same group as @Famine

 

[mistersafeway]

See that last sentence? That's not true for me. Were such evidence be presented to me, I would not deny it.

So... you're an atheist.

 

[BHRxRacer]

So... you're an atheist.

No, you're agnostics.

 

[mistersafeway]

No, you're agnostics.

Nope.

That, and that I'll never put myself in the same group as @Famine

You are deliberately contrary though. And pretty childish.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Nope.

Yup. If you're willing to concede if evidence is provided to you, you're agnostic. Unless you want to redefine the word to suit your peace of mind, of course.

You are deliberately contrary though. And pretty childish.

My sense of humor says hello.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Exactly. Most rational people will stop and think after they have been told they're wrong by 20-30 people. Not him. He won't budge. And then he has the guile to call other people arrogant!

I wonder what the Arabic word for irony is...

Most rational people, if they know anything about this thread, won't concern themselves too much with that consensus.

IMO, BHRxRacer is not incorrect in principle, but only in expression of the formula.

Famine's unbelief is directly attributable to belief.
That being his belief in the standard of evidence he believes is necessary for belief.
Hence, by that, such evidence being determined insufficient, he does not believe there is a God.
Therefore, belief is the pivotal and determining factor.

BTW, considering historical and global consensus, non belief in God, is in the minority as well, but not many of them budge either.

 

[huskeR32]

That's been my point all along. From my point of view, I find it astonishingly arrogant of most of you not to get on board with using "agnostic" instead of "atheist".

That we don't discard our mutually-agreed-upon definition in favor of yours, which nobody else is supporting, makes us arrogant?

That, and that I'll never put myself in the same group as @Famine

There goes every last bit of intellectual honesty I was willing to consider you might have possessed.

No, you're agnostics.

Nope. Once more, according to definitions the rest of us all agree on, and profess to subscribe to personally, we're atheists.

Yup. If you're willing to concede if evidence is provided to you, you're agnostic. Unless you want to redefine the word to suit your peace of mind, of course.

Again, you stand alone, trying to redefine a term the rest of us all agree on. Astoundingly arrog....

Nope. I'm done. I'm not chasing you around the never-ending spiral of your closed-minded egomania any longer.

 

[Famine]

It does have a belief.

That's literally what I just said. Your middle option has a belief. You are not accounting for any group that does not have a belief. You're doing this because you don't believe that group exists - despite being repeatedly told by members of that groups that they do exist - for the exact reason that @SuperCobraJet has just demonstrated above... the complete inability to separate an objective standard of proof from belief and the overreliance on personal standards of proof and belief that render you incapable of understanding that people can exist without believing in anything.

According to @Imari definition, agnostic implies that even if evidence were presented to the existence of god, I would still not believe a god exists.

In that case, no I'm not agnostic.

Agnosticism - as I'm sure your fluently Grecophonic friend will inform you - is a position of not knowing, or not having knowledge.

A - Greek, absence of
Gnostikos - Greek, knowledge
Isma - Greek, doctrine

Agnosticism is thus an absence of knowledge doctrine - a belief system that says you do not know.

Some agnostics believe they do not know, while some agnostics believe they cannot know. The former group believes that they neither believe nor disbelieve in a deity through the lack of knowledge (agnostic atheism) and the latter believes that they cannot ever believe or disbelieve in a deity as deities can never be known (agnosticism). The first group will accept evidence if provided - much as atheists will - while the latter will not.

Famine's unbelief is directly attributable to belief.

Incorrect.

That being his belief in the standard of evidence he believes is necessary for belief.

Incorrect. You've been told to stop this before the last time you abandoned the thread.

 

[Danoff]

Famine's unbelief is directly attributable to belief.
That being his belief in the standard of evidence he believes is necessary for belief.
Hence, by that, such evidence being determined insufficient, he does not believe there is a God.
Therefore, belief is the pivotal and determining factor.

BTW, considering historical and global consensus, non belief in God, is in the minority as well, but not many of them budge either.

Nope. The standard of evidence required for belief is zero. No evidence can ever result in belief. Belief should occur only when something is universally inescapably true (by the definition of belief). There is only one thing that can be said to fit that description. That other people are willing to believe things that do not fit that description is what defines them as a theist.


(Probably more accurately it defines them as a gnostic. I hope we don't go there again)

 

[BHRxRacer]

That we don't discard our mutually-agreed-upon definition in favor of yours, which nobody else is supporting, makes us arrogant?



There goes every last bit of intellectual honesty I was willing to consider you might have possessed.



Nope. Once more, according to definitions the rest of us all agree on, and profess to subscribe to personally, we're atheists.



Again, you stand alone, trying to redefine a term the rest of us all agree on. Astoundingly arrog....

Nope. I'm done. I'm not chasing you around the never-ending spiral of your closed-minded egomania any longer.

If the sample size to determine arrogance is this message board, yes you can say I'm the arrogant one here. If the sample size was people on this planet that care what the words originally mean (ironically some of you claim to be all for accuracy), then I'm not the arrogant one. You would be.

edit-

That's literally what I just said. Your middle option has a belief. You are not accounting for any group that does not have a belief. You're doing this because you don't believe that group exists - despite being repeatedly told by members of that groups that they do exist - for the exact reason that @SuperCobraJet has just demonstrated above... the complete inability to separate an objective standard of proof from belief and the overreliance on personal standards of proof and belief that render you incapable of understanding that people can exist without believing in anything.Agnosticism - as I'm sure your fluently Grecophonic friend will inform you - is a position of not knowing, or not having knowledge.

A - Greek, absence of
Gnostikos - Greek, knowledge
Isma - Greek, doctrine

Agnosticism is thus an absence of knowledge doctrine - a belief system that says you do not know.

Some agnostics believe they do not know, while some agnostics believe they cannot know. The former group believes that they neither believe nor disbelieve in a deity through the lack of knowledge (agnostic atheism) and the latter believes that they cannot ever believe or disbelieve in a deity as deities can never be known (agnosticism). The first group will accept evidence if provided - much as atheists will - while the latter will not.Incorrect.Incorrect. You've been told to stop this before the last time you abandoned the thread.

So, am I agnostic or an atheist? And what are you, in comparison?

PS The last part, about the groups of people, is just your analysis based on statistics. It's irrelevant.

Nope. The standard of evidence required for belief is zero. No evidence can ever result in belief. Belief should occur only when something is universally inescapably true (by the definition of belief). There is only one thing that can be said to fit that description. That other people are willing to believe things that do not fit that description is what defines them as a theist.

(Probably more accurately it defines them as a gnostic. I hope we don't go there again)

You say that, but then @Scaff 's definition says belief does not require evidence.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/belief
Not only not requires, but ESPECIALLY one without proof.

See?

 

[Danoff]

You say that, but then @Scaff 's definition says belief does not require evidence.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/belief
Not only not requires, but ESPECIALLY one without proof.

You (and that link) conflate faith with belief. I believe I also said "no evidence can ever result in belief".

 

[BHRxRacer]

You (and that link) conflate faith with belief. I believe I also said "no evidence can ever result in belief".

But that link is a dictionary. Presumably that's what you go by if you speak English.

 

[Scaff]

OHH so we're dealing with context now, and not technicalities. Okay.

For the record, it says: An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof:

ESPECIALLY, one without proof. ESPECIALLY, but not exclusively. There you go.

There we go?

What that a word can have two different meanings depending on context?

How exactly is that a revelation given that the colloquial non-religious meaning has nothing at all to do with this thread or discussion.

There are things I am not wrong about, and will not accept anybody saying otherwise, yes. 1+1=2, I'm infallible with that one for sure.

Such things about the Arabic language, I'm very qualified because like I TOLD YOU (but you cannot take my word for it), I have taken Arabic courses and aced them all. I was always the teacher's pet in school in university in Arabic classes(except the last one, she hated how I was always late, despite it being the driver's fault). I also TOLD YOU that I've worked as a translator and interpreter, and have met a lot in that field. Just at the Bahrain Grand Prix, I met a Russian linguist with PHD and even he had some flaws in his (admittedly not well) Arabic.

I can also tell you that the Arabic language is a sub-field where BOTH my parents are professionals. I'm beginning to get very annoyed at having to publicly state things about my personal life. That's enough.

And by what means are we supposed to magically know this about your background and parents?

However the arrogance you displace continues to amaze, so no chance at all exists that you could in any way be mistaken in either interpretation, context and/or the translation of that into English? None at all?

OF COURSE they do. They mention deity when they say that "commonly referring to a belief in deity". OH NOOZZZ! LOOK IT SAYS DEITY.

Drop the attitude - you will not be warned again.

Just because you saw the word there, doesn't mean it's part of the definition or etymology.

And it doesn't mean its not, nor does it remove the potential issue of context and/or its subsequent translation into English.

Because this is an internet forum, you either take it or you don't. It goes both ways.

Actually no, the third option is that you provide proof.

No. If you ask me to define Delicious, I'll answer you with "Pizza". I'm sure that's not what you'll find in the English dictionary(or any other, for any language), but it's my personal definition (and everyone has one). That's what you asked for. Again, that's your mistake. If you wanted to know what I think the English definition is, you should've been more specific.

That would not be a definition it would be an example of something that you consider delicious.

I would suggest that you reevaluate your claims of infallibility.

It would matter if I can tell that they're at least professionals, correct their mistake, you relay it to them and hear back.

Quite frankly I have no intention of subjecting them to you.

You claimed you provide the proof, and given this is an English language site provide it in that manner, as I find you claims that no one has ever translated it correctly to be highly suspect (everyone is wrong but me - seems to be your battle cry).

OH I love it. I could be wrong, but isn't this the same website that the Finnish guy used in the Islam thread that was full of butchered Quran? Oh well, let's pretend it's legit.

On that source specifically, he talks about Islam. In the middle, acknowledges that religion doesn't/didn't necessarily involve a deity. Rather, a way of life.

Proof that he's talking about Islam:
as one considers that we are essentially accountable beings who come into this world with a debt to fulfill, a debt due to God-a debt that grows as we mature into adults, charged with volition and discernment. Daily in our prayers, we recite that God is Malik Yawm al-Deen: Master of the Day of Judgment- a day in which all debts are settled,

So no, the parts where he mentions a deity he's talking about the religion of Islam, not the word "religion" itself. I don't see how you can't make that distinction

Try again.

Sorry but I see that as Debt doesn't/didn't necessarily involve a deity, and debt is not the same as religion. Context.

 

[Danoff]

But that link is a dictionary. Presumably that's what you go by if you speak English.

If you want to go by a sloppy use of the world belief - whose sloppiness is prevalent enough that it showed up in a dictionary - then we'll have to invent another word for it for the purposes of this discussion. The concept that I am talking about exists regardless of whether you think the word I am using is the right one. Do you ever get tired of making silly arguments about definitions of words rather than actually addressing the substance that you're being smacked in the face with?

 

[Scaff]

But that link is a dictionary. Presumably that's what you go by if you speak English.

No it means that the word in this case can have a number of meanings, from the utterly non-religious colloquial use to the religious use (and the link covers all of these)

Which is exactly why context is vital and your understanding of English would not appear to be quite a good as you may believe, either that or you are using context as a bait and switch and that will not work either.

 

[sems4arsenal]

@BHRxRacer Nah can't help you there sadly. Not qualified enough and wouldn't want to maybe add false info to the discussion.

 

[dddsprayshop]

Here, let me fix this for you.

Ha ha ha. finally some positive and fun in this topic.
Maybe not intended, but i got a smile.
Thank you for that.




PS. Almost 500 pages, you guys will have a party soon.

 

[Famine]

So, am I agnostic or an atheist?

I've no idea. It's practically impossible to get a straight answer out of you and even when you give one that is then discussed you claim you meant something else or were joking.

And what are you, in comparison?

Did you miss all the posts where I keep telling you that I have no beliefs and no religion and am an atheist? Or are you ignoring them out of convenience?

PS The last part, about the groups of people, is just your analysis based on statistics. It's irrelevant.

Nope. You can tell, because no statistics were used.

Agnostic atheists do not believe that they know whether there is a deity. Agnostics believe they do not and cannot know if there is a deity.