Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I use this definition: "A sect is a subgroup of a religious, political or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger religious group."
Enough of the semantics... time to move on.
Ok, but I maintain that atheism is not a religious, philosophical or political system, so differences of opinion do not a sect make, in atheism. All we agree on - the only thing that makes us atheist - is that we have no god -belief (or a god -disbelief, some might put it). On anything else we may differ - on our objectives, or tactics, or even what we call ourselves.
In fact, I can't agree your definition, as an organized sub group within a political party, for instance, is not called a sect, except in mockery. It really is just for religions. So that makes philosophy and politics (according to your definition) religions too. So the definition 'religion' then becomes meaningless.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-11-2016 at 10:24 PM..
When you say there 'forms' of atheist then you actually agree with a fellow Atheist who put it in their terms by saying there are different 'sects' in Atheism. There; however, is another Atheist who believes there are no sects (or forms) of Atheism. Anyway, I don't have an issue with it.
So, question for my own knowledge is, what's the difference between an agnostic and an atheist in plain simple English?
An agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether there is a god or not. That includes you, though you believe there is (on faith, I would argue, because the evidence is not good enough).
Someone (that is any such agnostic) who doesn't believe, because there is insufficient evidence to convince, is what we call an atheist. Some are content to disbelieve, others want to do something about the influence of religion. That is perhaps the nearest to a 'sect' of atheism, but it it is a social activist campaign group father than a sect, because atheism is not a religion.
So agnostic is not an alternative to atheism (as a lot of people as a lot of people suppose) but is the basis of it, in saying: "You don't know whether there is a god or not but, going on the evidence, do you believe there is one, or not?"
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-11-2016 at 10:30 PM..
Go to the atheist FAQ and scroll down just a bit to the graphic. That is the easiest way i have found to conceptualize the relationship between (a)gnosticism (knowledge claims) and (a)theism (belief claims).
Faith includes confidence in what you come to know.
Nope! Faith is all about what you DON'T know but believe anyway.
Quote:
If you have a reliable friend that says he will meet you at a certain time you have faith ( confidence ) in his word.
That is not faith, it's trust based on verifiable evidence. If your friend is always on time when he meets you then you rely on that past evidence to accept that he will be there at the time he says. However, if your friend never turns up on time and too often, doesn't turn up at all, then to expect him to turn up ...and on time, would be an act of 'faith'.
It is called an analogy. Work with it. I am aware of the difference between ideas and appearance thanks. The analogy holds regardless. Because the point of the analogy is that you are.... with atheism......... taking a non-homogeneous group with no real link between people in that group....... and trying to make something of the differences between them.
And it results in you espousing a nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacierx
billion people with a shared idea is going to develop into a lot more sects than 500 people with a shared idea.
Exactly. Now you are getting it. The issue is that atheism is not a shared idea. The people in the set "atheist" are not linked by a shared idea, like people in the set "Christian" might be. They are linked by a LACK of ONE shared idea.
If you group people by a shared idea, then you can meaningfully speak of sects within that group. If you link people by one attribute they do NOT share, then you are not going to be able to do so as sensibly. You might as well be talking about the sects in people who do not believe in Santa. Because some people who do not believe in Santa vote republican and some people who do not believe in santa vote Democrat.
See how non-sensical you very quickly get when you group people on a shared ABSENCE of a trait and then try to find sects within them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
so the definition of Atheism is NOT, "disbelieving in the existence of God"?
Perhaps Arach Angle misused the word "sects" There are no sects in atheism....
No. Sects are religious subgroups who share a doctrine or an interpretation of a doctrine. Atheism is not an ideology, it has no institutions, no doctrine, no leaders. It is simply the lack of belief in a god.
by definition atheism is not a religion. By the definition of sect atheism doesn't have it. It's a lose interpretation to be sure.
The first requirement of religion is a blind faith statement. some of us (atheist) have them. Yeah, there is no deity. But we are part of something more complex that probably is alive. Since that is more reasonable a claim then we are not part of a larger system that may be alive; the claim that we are not is blind faith. or just stupid, take your pick.
It is called an analogy. Work with it. I am aware of the difference between ideas and appearance thanks. The analogy holds regardless. Because the point of the analogy is that you are.... with atheism......... taking a non-homogeneous group with no real link between people in that group....... and trying to make something of the differences between them.
And it results in you espousing a nonsense.
Exactly. Now you are getting it. The issue is that atheism is not a shared idea. The people in the set "atheist" are not linked by a shared idea, like people in the set "Christian" might be. They are linked by a LACK of ONE shared idea.
If you group people by a shared idea, then you can meaningfully speak of sects within that group. If you link people by one attribute they do NOT share, then you are not going to be able to do so as sensibly. You might as well be talking about the sects in people who do not believe in Santa. Because some people who do not believe in Santa vote republican and some people who do not believe in santa vote Democrat.
See how non-sensical you very quickly get when you group people on a shared ABSENCE of a trait and then try to find sects within them?
See the above as it applies to you too.
Oh yeah...that is typical of people to put up many thousands of posts criticizing, insulting, and mocking strangers...and forming national organizations...to contest that which they, "merely don't believe in due to lack of evidence"!!
Do you spend lots of time online insulting and contesting Santa Believers Nozz?
Did you form a National Organization to dispute Santa Belief?
The Atheists need to get hip to what a joke they are.
It is so easy to see through Atheist Religion spew. Even easier than to see through the Mainstream Religion spew.
Nobody takes Santa seriously . Nobody constructs laws and school curriculum around a belief in Santa . US politics doesn't require at least a claim of belief in Santa to get elected . People don't lose their jobs because they don't believe in Santa . Teachers in schools don't talk down to kids for not believing in Santa. People who believe in Santa don't go around killing those who don't .
You really need to get hip to reality, and why atheists fight back the way they do . You seem your usual clueless self .
But since that would require a measure of honesty that making your childish posts does not, I won't hold my breath .
Do you spend lots of time online insulting and contesting Santa Believers Nozz?
Did you form a National Organization to dispute Santa Belief?
As with most of these types of fallacious analogies.....
When Santa believers (Santanists?) start using their belief in Santa as justification to discriminate against people, control women, and infiltrate science classrooms with their nonsense.....that is when us A-Santanists will rise up and become vocal in our disbelief of Santa. Until then....we're perfectly content to let that remain a harmless delusion for some people.
As with most of these types of fallacious analogies.....
When Santa believers (Santanists?) start using their belief in Santa as justification to discriminate against people, control women, and infiltrate science classrooms with their nonsense.....that is when us A-Santanists will rise up and become vocal in our disbelief of Santa. Until then....we're perfectly content to let that remain a harmless delusion for some people.
People all have their views and positions.
There are as many different views as there are people...as no two think exactly alike.
The basis for their views is inconsequential...it is, at end, just their personal subjective opinion...no matter what they base it on.
Lobby the merit of your own position...rather than using 95% of the effort bashing the differing view.
That is what Mainstream Religions do...they call it "sin", and slam those they determine to be "sinners". The Atheist Religion does the same...they just have a different definition of what constitutes "wrongdoing".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
