The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: Johnson on October 25, 2006, 10:46:29 PM
-
What Philosphy do YOU follow? Take the quiz here (http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=13060), and THEN answer the poll.
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=13060
You scored as Kantianism.
Your life is guided by the ethical model of Kantianism: You seek to have consistent laws rule your actions, and your will is directed by reason.
"I do not, therefore, need any penetrating acuteness to see what I have to do in order that my volition be morally good. Inexperienced in the course of the world, incapable of being prepared for whatever might come to pass in it, I ask myself only: can you also will that your maxim become a universal law?"
--Immanuel Kant
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...
Existentialism 85%
Kantianism 85%
Strong Egoism 80%
Hedonism 75%
Utilitarianism 60%
Justice (Fairness) 55%
Nihilism 15%
Apathy 10%
Divine Command 0%
-
You scored as Hedonism.Â
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life?s pleasures as much as you can.
?Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!?
 :D
Hedonism 90%
Utilitarianism 65%
Justice (Fairness) 65%
Existentialism 65%
Strong Egoism 50%
Nihilism 45%
Kantianism 45%
Divine Command 25%
Apathy 20%
-
I'm curious as to what people's various %'s are too....
edit: thanks :D
-
sure, why not?
You scored as Existentialism.
Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.
It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.
--Jean-Paul Sartre
Existentialism 85%
Justice (Fairness) 80%
Nihilism 50%
Strong Egoism 45%
Utilitarianism 40%
Kantianism 40%
Divine Command 20%
Hedonism 10%
Apathy 10%
-
You scored as Strong Egoism.
Your life is very much guided by the concept of Egoism: You work primarily to promote your own interests.
�I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.�
�I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.�
--Ayn Rand
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...
Existentialism 90%
Strong Egoism 90%
Hedonism 80%
Justice (Fairness) 75%
Kantianism 40%
Nihilism 30%
Apathy 20%
Utilitarianism 10%
Divine Command 0%
-
Ugh Kantism is usually held by socialists, and existentialism by Frenchies who hate the world.
-
Hedonism 100%
Existentialism 90%
Strong Egoism 75%
Justice (Fairness) 70%
Kantianism 55%
Utilitarianism 35%
Nihilism 25%
Apathy 5%
Divine Command 0%
You scored as Hedonism.
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life?s pleasures as much as you can.
?Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!?
-
Cool quiz!
You scored as Hedonism.
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life�s pleasures as much as you can.
�Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!�
Hedonism - 85%
Existentialism - 70%
Strong Egoism - 65%
Kantianism - 55%
Justice (Fairness) - 20%
Nihilism - 20%
Apathy - 20%
Utilitarianism - 15%
Divine Command - 0%
-
Hey joelberg take the quiz, we want to see what you are...
-
You scored as Strong Egoism.
Your life is very much guided by the concept of Egoism: You work primarily to promote your own interests.
�I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.�
�I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.�
--Ayn Rand
-
Justice (Fairness)
100%
Strong Egoism
100%
Hedonism
95%
Existentialism
90%
Divine Command
75%
Kantianism
70%
Utilitarianism
30%
Nihilism
20%
Apathy
5%
-
Divine command part is dumb, just because a person thinks that people should follow "God's will" doesn't define "God's will" in any way shape or form. If I say people should follow what they believe their God would do, that does not mean that I think that God commands the world. Free Will anybody? I don't like this quiz too much even though I know I scored about where I thought I would
-
Isn't free will largely a Christian belief? I would have to agree, there is far too much variation in what people believe to be "God's will". Just the same I don't think many people will rate 100% under divine command.
-
I'm not a Christian, and I know a few Christians who are hardcore predestination types.
-
Strong Egoism - 100%
Kantianism - 95%
Existentialism - 95%
Justice (Fairness) - 95%
Hedonism - 80%
Nihilism - 15%
Utilitarianism - 10%
Apathy - 0%
Divine Command - 0%
A lot of the questions were fairly ambiguous, and even the rating system for each question left a lot to be desired, but oh well.
-
You scored as Hedonism.
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life's pleasures as much as you can.
"Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!"
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...
Hedonism - 100%
Strong Egoism - 80%
Justice (Fairness) - 75%
Existentialism - 75%
Utilitarianism - 75%
Kantianism - 55%
Nihilism - 5%
Divine Command - 0%
Apathy - 0%
-
*shrug* I'm fond of it's accuracy in succinctness... 36 questions to define your worldview... Pretty damn good IMHO
-
Ugh Kantism is usually held by socialists, and existentialism by Frenchies who hate the world.
Wrong, and Wrong. You sound like someone who learned about philosophy from cartoons.
-
*shrug* I'm fond of it's accuracy in succinctness... 36 questions to define your worldview... Pretty damn good IMHO
Well, I guess when I saw some of these questions I entered all these thought experiments of my own and then the questions seem that much more difficult to answer without a footnote. Especially when there's an even number of options and thus not a middle ground to choose on debateable ones.
-
which is why it asked multiple questions in different fashions about the same topics, and then supplies you with multiple %'s rather than simply saying "you are this"
-
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life�s pleasures as much as you can.
�Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!�
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...
Hedonism
90%
Existentialism
75%
Strong Egoism
75%
Kantianism
55%
Nihilism
50%
Justice (Fairness)
40%
Apathy
25%
Utilitarianism
15%
Divine Command
0%
-
You scored as Hedonism.
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life's pleasures as much as you can.
"Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!"
Hedonism
Â
95%
Justice (Fairness)
Â
85%
Strong Egoism
Â
70%
Existentialism
Â
50%
Utilitarianism
Â
50%
Kantianism
Â
50%
Nihilism
Â
35%
Apathy
Â
35%
Divine Command
Â
0%
I thought some of these questions were poorly thought out.Â
"I always try to follow the laws of my religion's holy scriptures."Â
No matter what I answer, the question indicates that I have a religion and I either do or don't follow it's rules. Same for "My religion, above all, shows me how to live."Â
"People should work harder to help others, even those who live far away."
I'd say people who want to help others should work hard to voluntarily help, but I imagine the people that get the governments to help other nations work hard as well. I agree with the first half, but disagree with the second half. Unfortunately, they both fall within the spectrum of the question.
"Ethics, religions, societal norms, laws, and other such principles are meaningless and worthless."
Ethics. Mostly disagree. Religions, societal norms, laws. I agree more.
-
there sure are alot of heathens here :D
(http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:XRSKUIxFG29DbM:http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/0/0e/Hedonism_Bot.JPG)
-
You scored as Utilitarianism.
Your life is guided by the principles of Utilitarianism: You seek the greatest good for the greatest number.
�The said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.�
--Jeremy Bentham
�Whenever the general disposition of the people is such, that each individual regards those only of his interests which are selfish, and does not dwell on, or concern himself for, his share of the general interest, in such a state of things, good government is impossible.�
--John Stuart Mill
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...
Hedonism
75%
Utilitarianism
75%
Nihilism
65%
Justice (Fairness)
65%
Apathy
65%
Existentialism
65%
Kantianism
45%
Strong Egoism
35%
Divine Command
0%
-
I'm a hedonist. It's good times
haha. pun.
-
Kantianism. For sure. I act only on that maxim which I could at the same time will to become universal law. 8)
Kantianism:Â 95%
Existentialism:Â 85%
Hedonism:Â 80%
Strong Egoism:Â 70%
Justice (Fairness):Â 70%
Divine Command:Â 40%
Utilitarianism:Â 35%
Nihilism:Â 30%
Apathy:Â 15%
-
Ugh Kantism is usually held by socialists, and existentialism by Frenchies who hate the world.
Wrong, and Wrong. You sound like someone who learned about philosophy from cartoons.
Most socialists I've talked to and gotten into philosophical discussions with have been pretty hardcore into Kant.
-
I thought some of these questions were poorly thought out.
"I always try to follow the laws of my religion's holy scriptures."
No matter what I answer, the question indicates that I have a religion and I either do or don't follow it's rules. Same for "My religion, above all, shows me how to live."
"People should work harder to help others, even those who live far away."
I'd say people who want to help others should work hard to voluntarily help, but I imagine the people that get the governments to help other nations work hard as well. I agree with the first half, but disagree with the second half. Unfortunately, they both fall within the spectrum of the question.
"Ethics, religions, societal norms, laws, and other such principles are meaningless and worthless."
Ethics. Mostly disagree. Religions, societal norms, laws. I agree more.
I agree wholeheartedly, just because you believe you should follow the rules of your religion doesn't mean that you believe in divine command.
And what about religions where the rules are open to debate and speculation?
-
Strong Egoism 100%
Existentialism 95%
Hedonism 90%
Kantianism 60%
Justice (Fairness) 50%
Nihilism 30%
Utilitarianism 30%
Divine Command 20%
Apathy 15%
-
Someone remind me what Nihilism is again?
-
Someone remind me what Nihilism is again?
Are you kidding?
4. Philosophy.
a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.
-
You scored as Existentialism.Â
Edit: Only me and BEB are Existentialists? I thought it would be more common than that. :P
Yes, Egoism and Existentialism are very pro-freedom in general. Â I know others are existentialist, like Kimsu and stuff, for example.
I've found that Hedonist, Nihilist, Utilitarianist, and Kantianist may also be pro-freedom. Â You could even encourage a peron that agrees to Divine Command or Justice (whatever the fuck that is) into agreeing with freedom. Â I guess you could do the same for someone with strong since of apathy but you would have to change them from well, apathy.
-
Existentialism, it is.
I'm not sure how I ended up with anything under Divine Command. Wonder about what I didn't agree/disagree strongly enough?
Existentialism 80%
Hedonism 70%
Utilitarianism 65%
Strong Egoism 65%
Justice (Fairness) 65%
Kantianism 60%
Nihilism 35%
Apathy 30%
Divine Command 5%
-
Most socialists I've talked to and gotten into philosophical discussions with have been pretty hardcore into Kant.
Many socialists are pro-government fascist asshats who are also pseudo-intellectuals. I'm sure they haven't REALLY thought about the things Kant had to say... considering the UNIVERSAL law angle.
I believe in what he has to say, simply becuase I believe that if something is to be moral, and then it could be willed to be universally so under any circumstance. Meaning that there would be VERY FEW things that could be deemed universal law.
A socialist would believe that ALL SORTS of things could be deemed into being a universal law. Hence my belief that socialists are gullible, shortsighted dummies.
I believe if you were to ask your friends to take this test, that they would score much higher as Utilitarians.
-
You scored as Existentialism.Â
Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
?Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.?
?It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.?
--Jean-Paul Sartre
?It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.?
--Blaise Pascal
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...
Existentialism
Â
70%
Utilitarianism
Â
55%
Justice (Fairness)
Â
55%
Hedonism
Â
55%
Kantianism
Â
40%
Strong Egoism
Â
35%
Divine Command
Â
25%
Apathy
Â
25%
Nihilism
Â
10%
-
<table border='0' cellpadding='5' cellspacing='0' width='600'><tr><td></td><td> You scored as Existentialism. Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
�Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.�
�It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.�
--Jean-Paul Sartre
�It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.�
--Blaise Pascal
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arocoun)
<table border='0' width='300' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0'><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Existentialism</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='85' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>85%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Strong Egoism</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='80' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>80%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Hedonism</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='70' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>70%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Kantianism</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='70' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>70%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Justice (Fairness)</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='60' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>60%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Utilitarianism</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='30' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>30%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Nihilism</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='30' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>30%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Divine Command</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='30' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>30%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Apathy</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='30' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>30%</font></td></tr></td></tr></table>
<a href='http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=13060'>What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03)[/url]
<font face='Arial' size='1'>created with <a href='http://quizfarm.com'>QuizFarm.com[/url]</font></table>
-
Existentialism 70%
Strong Egoism 55%
Hedonism 55%
Justice (Fairness) 45%
Nihilism 35%
Utilitarianism 30%
Kantianism 30%
Apathy 30%
Divine Command 5%
I'm rather surprised at the high percentage of people here with extremely high or even full hedonism scores. Pleasure is important, sure, but not at the total expense of responsibility. I'm guilty of succumbing to it more than I should (hence my vice of going out to eat and buying video games when I should be trying to pay off debts), but I don't think it's really a GOOD thing. Moderation is important, too.
-
You scored as Existentialism.
Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does."
"It is up to you to give [life] a meaning."
--Jean-Paul Sartre
"It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth."
--Blaise Pascal
Existentialism 90%
Utilitarianism 60%
Strong Egoism 55%
Justice (Fairness) 50%
Kantianism 40%
Nihilism 35%
Hedonism 30%
Divine Command 25%
Apathy 10%
-
You scored as Existentialism.
Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
Existentialism 100%
Hedonism 80%
Justice (Fairness) 70%
Utilitarianism 65%
Strong Egoism 65%
Kantianism 60%
Nihilism 25%
Apathy 15%
Divine Command 0%
-
hrm... I wonder what the numbers would look like if we added the percentages of all the OTHER categories that people DIDN'T score as their top....
Like... the overall totals....
I wonder if Hedonism and Existentialism would still be in the same position... or if more people have one of the others higher as a secondary or tertiary path....
-
I'm curious as well. Especially since several of us tied and had to pick one of the two.
-
Mark took the quiz. Johnson's prediction was wrong. Here are his results:
Hedonism 95%
Existentialism 90%
Strong Egoism 65%
Kantianism 60%
Justice (Fairness) 60%
Utilitarianism 45%
Nihilism 30%
Divine Command 25%
Apathy 20%
-
You scored as Strong Egoism.
Your life is very much guided by the concept of Egoism: You work primarily to promote your own interests.
"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."
--Ayn Rand
...
Existentialism 100%
Strong Egoism 100%
Hedonism 80%
Kantianism 60%
Nihilism 50%
Utilitarianism 35%
Justice (Fairness) 20%
Apathy 10%
Divine Command 0%
-
There is no category for Objectivist, so it pigeon-holed me as a Hedonist. "Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life?s pleasures as much as you can. 'Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!'?"
Hedonism
90%
Existentialism
85%
Strong Egoism
85%
Kantianism
70%
Justice (Fairness)
65%
Utilitarianism
30%
Nihilism
25%
Apathy
10%
Divine Command
0%
-
actually mike.. look up a post... Objectivism is pidgeon holed squarely under "strong egoism"
-
actually mike.. look up a post... Objectivism is pidgeon holed squarely under "strong egoism"
He has a point.
-
actually mike.. look up a post... Objectivism is pidgeon holed squarely under "strong egoism"
He has a point.
yes i agree but objectivism is RATIONAL strong egoism, which to some can make a great difference.
-
Existentialism 100%
Strong Egoism 100%
Hedonism 100%
Kantianism 75%
Justice (Fairness) 75%
Utilitarianism 50%
Nihilism 25%
Divine Command 0%
Apathy 0%
What can I say, I'm an extremist.
-
My highest two were 70% Hedonism and 60% Existentialism. I guess I'm not that dedicated to any one living paradigm.
-
- Existentialism 100%
- Strong Egoism 100%
- Kantianism 75%
- Justice (Fairness) 65%
- Hedonism 50%
- Nihilism 25%
- Apathy 15%
- Utilitarianism 15%
- Divine Command 0%
Redone the test and read the questions more carefully. :)
-- Bridget
-
ou scored as Hedonism. Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life�s pleasures as much as you can.
�Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!�
Hedonism 85%
Strong Egoism 65%
Existentialism 60%
Justice (Fairness) 55%
Kantianism 40%
Nihilism 35%
Apathy 30%
Utilitarianism 30%
Divine Command 0%
-
I can't complete this quiz because it comes from the assumption that the user of it is monotheistic and monotheistic views of morality. I am polytheistic so a lot of this doesn't apply to me.
-
I believe the word God can easily be pluralized for the purposes of this quiz.
Divine command is divine command... whether or not it comes from multiple fictional entities or just one is neither here nor there. :D
-
I believe the word God can easily be pluralized for the purposes of this quiz.
Divine command is divine command... whether or not it comes from multiple fictional entities or just one is neither here nor there. :D
Except no, it really can't be because there is no such thing as "divine command" for me. Just doesn't apply.
-
Then an answer of NO, is equally applicable.
-
I guess I'm just being a pain in the ass sorry Johnson :lol:
-
Right, the "fictional" comment is why I don't discuss these kind of things with atheists. Why bother?
-
Funny, I'm not an athiest.
It doesn't really bother me, I mean.. of course if you don't want to take it becuase it doesn't cover polytheism... by all means don't take it.
I was just pointing out the folly of the fact that it's just a silly quiz that is in fact written in such a way that your answers could probably still be applicable.
I'd like to see this quiz include other philosophies as well... Like Objectivism, or Pragmatism...
-
Funny, I'm not an athiest.
It doesn't really bother me, I mean.. of course if you don't want to take it becuase it doesn't cover polytheism... by all means don't take it.
I was just pointing out the folly of the fact that it's just a silly quiz that is in fact written in such a way that your answers could probably still be applicable.
I'd like to see this quiz include other philosophies as well... Like Objectivism, or Pragmatism...
Funny, if you're not an athiest then what's the deal with the "one fictional deity vs many fictional deities" comment? Sounds pretty athiest to me. And like I said..I KNOW it's just a quiz and that I could do what you said, no big deal I was being a pain in the ass about it.
-
Existentialism. Apparently I choose the meaning and purpose of my life.
Existentialism - 90%
Hedonism - 70%
Kantianism - 60%
Strong Egoism - 60%
Justice (Fairness) - 60%
Divine Command - 55%
Utilitarianism - 45%
Apathy - 20%
Nihilism - 15%
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism
Alright, gotcha but if you follow this strong agnosticism then you don't know if they exist and believe it's impossible for anyone to know. Yet you said "fictional." That would be denying that they can exist at all. That was what I was pointing out. That is an atheist position.
-
Wrong again, I'm merely making the claim that whatever you or anyone else has to say about a deity is fictional. Meaning that you are making it up. I made no claims about whether or not there was a God or not. Merely that if you say something about knowing anything about them, that you are full of shit. :D
-
Wrong again, I'm merely making the claim that whatever you or anyone else has to say about a deity is fictional. Meaning that you are making it up. I made no claims about whether or not there was a God or not. Merely that if you say something about knowing anything about them, that you are full of shit. :D
No, sorry, I never made claims about knowing anything about any gods, I just stated the fact about my beliefs and why they don't fit in with the quizzes questions. You made the statement about fictional deity and deities.
-
Divine command is divine command... whether or not it comes from multiple fictional entities or just one is neither here nor there.
-
Are going to tell me that beliefs don't come from knowledge?
Stating that there is more than one deity is just as much an act of fiction as stating that there is one.
When one makes a statement of belief about whether there is one god, no gods, or many gods, they are perpetrating an act of fiction, becuase they have no idea.
Also, I was reffering to divine command... anyone who makes a claim that they recieved a COMMAND from a dvine entity... again.. Full of shit.
-
You Kant always get what you want.
-
You Kant always get what you want.
wow, earning karma on your first post... my hats off to you sir...
-
You Kant always get what you want.
wow, earning karma on your first post... my hats off to you sir...
Astounding. Thank you for making my night, Johnson.
-
The fact that you made a different account for some reason makes it even funnier. Thank YOU for the joke. (and the vid)
-
You Kant always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need.
-
I deleted my old one.
-
hahaha and karma for error....
-
You scored as Hedonism.
Hedonism 75%
Existentialism 70%
Strong Egoism 50%
Justice (Fairness) 50%
Utilitarianism 40%
Kantianism 40%
Nihilism 40%
Apathy 25%
Divine Command 0%
-
Funny, I'm not an athiest.
It doesn't really bother me, I mean.. of course if you don't want to take it becuase it doesn't cover polytheism... by all means don't take it.
I was just pointing out the folly of the fact that it's just a silly quiz that is in fact written in such a way that your answers could probably still be applicable.
I'd like to see this quiz include other philosophies as well... Like Objectivism, or Pragmatism...
Lemme dig up a few links and I'll post them later.
-- Bridget
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism
Strong agnosticism, then, equates to weak atheism. If you assert that we can't know whether or not there is a god, then you do not believe in a god and therefore are a weak atheist.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism
Strong agnosticism, then, equates to weak atheism. If you assert that we can't know whether or not there is a god, then you do not believe in a god and therefore are a weak atheist.
Well, you can be a theistic agnostic too. I think I've bitched and moaned about this distinction on this board before. Agnosticism is a subordinate category of either atheism or theism, and cannot stand by itself as a middle category. People often seem to think that agnosticism exempts them from being either one, and thus leaves them guiltless somehow because they haven't made any positive assertions, which isn't really true.
-
In my moments of wasting time pondering the meaning of the universe... I lean towards pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_pantheism), or more specifically determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism), which is a branch of naturalistic pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism).
However, that's only really when I ponder that, IF I were to decide to adopt a belief... That MIGHT be likely to be it. However, since I have no knowledge, God could in fact be Jesus. That notion however, seems entirely like the most unlikely and childishly stupid option though, as an explantion of a God. I think any sort of explaining god or gods as a deity is sort of childish, but since I really have no idea, the fact that I even lean towards that opinion is just a silly belief.
-
My beliefs of the universe contradict my Libertarian sensibilities: I'm a panpsychic agnostic: Everything is conscious, but subjective experience causes me to apply value judgements to that which I objectify, but I don't know if/what is the divine in the equation.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism
Strong agnosticism, then, equates to weak atheism. If you assert that we can't know whether or not there is a god, then you do not believe in a god and therefore are a weak atheist.
Well, you can be a theistic agnostic too. I think I've bitched and moaned about this distinction on this board before. Agnosticism is a subordinate category of either atheism or theism, and cannot stand by itself as a middle category. People often seem to think that agnosticism exempts them from being either one, and thus leaves them guiltless somehow because they haven't made any positive assertions, which isn't really true.
You're absolutely right-- thanks for mentioning that.
-
In my moments of wasting time pondering the meaning of the universe... I lean towards pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_pantheism), or more specifically determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism), which is a branch of naturalistic pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism).
Not really. Determinism is a philosophical belief about the causes of events in the course of time (that is, that events are part of an unbroken chain which is inevitable and therefore predictable, if you have sufficient knowledge). It makes no comment on the existence of gods or transcendent reality. A person can be a determinist theist, or a determinist atheist. It's not a "branch" of any particular position regarding the existence of gods.
Naturalistic pantheism is, in my opinion, a contradiction in terms. It appears to entail some gobbledygook about viewing the universe in a mystical manner, but "theism" means "belief in god(s)." "Pantheism" means "belief that the universe is god," and "Naturalism" means "excluding the possibility of the supernatural, including gods." I see that the Wikipedia article you cite points this out, and the only response offered is basically that pantheism isn't really a kind of theism....in which case, the word "pantheism" is a misnomer and should be discarded. You can feel awe and reverance for the universe without deifying it (see Richard Dawkins for a stellar example), and thereby sidestep this whole mess about supernatural agents which can't be tested anyhow and therefore aren't scientifically tenable.
-
In my moments of wasting time pondering the meaning of the universe... I lean towards pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_pantheism), or more specifically determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism), which is a branch of naturalistic pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism).
Not really. Determinism is a philosophical belief about the causes of events in the course of time (that is, that events are part of an unbroken chain which is inevitable and therefore predictable, if you have sufficient knowledge). It makes no comment on the existence of gods or transcendent reality. A person can be a determinist theist, or a determinist atheist. It's not a "branch" of any particular position regarding the existence of gods.
What is the original cause? If you believe in a CAUSE for EVERYTHING, you believe in an original cause.
Naturalistic pantheism is, in my opinion, a contradiction in terms. It appears to entail some gobbledygook about viewing the universe in a mystical manner, but "theism" means "belief in god(s)." "Pantheism" means "belief that the universe is god," and "Naturalism" means "excluding the possibility of the supernatural, including gods."
Something being naturalistic does not mean that it needs to follow 100% of the tenets of naturalism.
Where does matter come from? How did gravity begin? Why does gravity work the way it does? What about Energy? How did light and heat come about? Why did the PROCESS of Evolution lead to intelligent creatures that can ask this question, and yet also understand the principles of irony?
Why does the CONCEPT of destiny exist? The concept of emotions?
Is there something that is beyond intelligence?
I see that the Wikipedia article you cite points this out, and the only response offered is basically that pantheism isn't really a kind of theism....in which case, the word "pantheism" is a misnomer and should be discarded. You can feel awe and reverance for the universe without deifying it (see Richard Dawkins for a stellar example), and thereby sidestep this whole mess about supernatural agents which can't be tested anyhow and therefore aren't scientifically tenable.
DEITY:
3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
It is in these sorts of questions, and in humilty to realize that even Einstein was religious, (much moreso than I could ever be) and in that I find myself an Agnostic. I find belief, and disbelief to be an active waste of time. For, if I were to believe in a force of creation, that entity would be all powerful, and would be able to create all of the above... Would be able to directly plan the meager destiny of any individual. There would be NO physical form for any "deity" in which I would believe in. It simply would be... a force... it would BE existance. The rules of TIME and SPACE defined through living within an intelligence beyond intelligence. Beyond the concept of knowledge. To a non-being like this, everything is insignifigant. Humanity, Earth, the Universe... Worshipping it would be frivolous. Asking for favors would fall upon "deaf ears". It would be akin to trying use the mere force of your will to request that somehow destiny and karma go the way you want.
So, basically, I believe that if a deity(s) does exist, that we are so impossibly insignifigant to it, that our belief or unbelief in it's existance does not matter. That our existence to IT does not matter. Yet at the same time that the possibility of the existence of scuh a deity is so unlikely and impossible, an improvable, that to spend time believing in such a thing is to lose focus on the world around you, and to be completely and insanely out of touch with priorities.
http://www.rational-church.com/fallacies.htm
-
You scored as Existentialism.
Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.
It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.
--Jean-Paul Sartre
It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.
--Blaise Pascal
Hedonism 90%
Existentialism 90%
Strong Egoism 70%
Nihilism 60%
Justice (Fairness) 50%
Kantianism 45%
Utilitarianism 40%
Apathy 25%
Divine Command 10%
-
Causality does not imply determinism. 6_6 *ducks*
-- Bridget
-
What is the original cause? If you believe in a CAUSE for EVERYTHING, you believe in an original cause.
Even if that's true, who says the cause has to be God? You're taking what you view to be the logical extension of a philosophical position and conflating it with another. That's bad to do, because it misrepresents people who actually take that philosophical position but don't agree with you on its logical extension.
Something being naturalistic does not mean that it needs to follow 100% of the tenets of naturalism.
That's what "naturalistic" means. Naturalism just has one tenet, which is basically that supernatural phenomena are either non-existant or unknowable. So you can't say "I'm a naturalist except for this one area where I believe in the supernatural."
Where does matter come from? How did gravity begin? Why does gravity work the way it does? What about Energy? How did light and heat come about? Why did the PROCESS of Evolution lead to intelligent creatures that can ask this question, and yet also understand the principles of irony?
Why does the CONCEPT of destiny exist? The concept of emotions?
Is there something that is beyond intelligence?
Argument from incredulity. Not to mention, what does it mean to be "beyond intelligence"?
DEITY:
3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
By that definition, George Bush is a deity because he is revered as such by some people. By weakening the definition so much, it effectively becomes useless.
It is in these sorts of questions, and in humilty to realize that even Einstein was religious, (much moreso than I could ever be)
Argument from authority (and also pretty insulting to those who don't share your views-- that doesn't make them less hunble). Who says Einstein, intelligent as he was, had to be right about everything?
and in that I find myself an Agnostic. I find belief, and disbelief to be an active waste of time.
Atheism doesn't have to be disbelief or denial. It can easily just be lack of belief. That's what the word literally means: not theism. You don't have to be a "naturalistic pantheist" to simply say "I don't see any reason to believe in something that could properly be called God"...and indeed, having the word "theist" anywhere in your title in the first place logically prevents you from saying that.
-
You scored as Existentialism.
Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.
It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.
--Jean-Paul Sartre
It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.
--Blaise Pascal
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...
Existentialism 95%
Hedonism 90%
Strong Egoism 75%
Kantianism 60%
Justice (Fairness) 60%
Utilitarianism 25%
Nihilism 25%
Apathy 5%
Divine Command 0%
Thank God I scored 0% on Divine Command. :lol:
-
Atheism doesn't have to be disbelief or denial. It can easily just be lack of belief. That's what the word literally means: not theism. You don't have to be a "naturalistic pantheist" to simply say "I don't see any reason to believe in something that could properly be called God"...and indeed, having the word "theist" anywhere in your title in the first place logically prevents you from saying that.
Please present to me another instance of where one is presented an idea and magically does not form a belief.
When presented with the Idea of a GOD -
You either
a. Believe in the idea.
b. disbelieve the idea
c. claim to not have enough knowledge.
Your option of simply lacking belief can only exist in someone who has never even heard the concept of a god. If a person knows the word Atheist, then they have heard of the respective concepts.
Atheism as you decribe it does not exist. What you are decribing is Agnosticism. People who say "I don't know". I'm sorry if you feel it's a dirty word and that people make fun of you for being on the fence. I for one, am proud to say "I don't know", it makes me feel like I am being way more honest than the high number of atheists who are actually agnostics. Those that merely CALL themselves Atheists to piss off Christians.
If a person knows of the word Atheist, then they either actively believe god does not exist (Strong Atheism) or they are weak atheists who are actually agnostics. Allbeit they may be STRONG agnostics such as myself... but they are agnostics nonetheless.
BTW
atheism
One entry found for atheism.
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
theism
One entry found for theism.
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 the human race 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
If you have been presented with theistic beliefs, and actively REJECTED them, then there is a reason for you to do so. That reason is likely that you lack evidence, or KNOWLEDGE.
Main Entry: 1ag·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
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
- ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism
Strong agnosticism, then, equates to weak atheism. If you assert that we can't know whether or not there is a god, then you do not believe in a god and therefore are a weak atheist.Â
That's retarded. This is a perfect illustration of how the word atheist got all fucked up. Strong agnostics are exactly that....agnostic. If you think that makes them atheists than that's because your totally unaware that atheism is supposed to mean an affirmative belief in the non-existence of god. Atheists started backpeddling on that when they realized that would make atheism a religion. So guess what all you atheists out there who do not have an affirmative belief in the non-existence of god..... You're agnostic.
-
I see the scale of secularism slides like so
1. STRONG ATHEIST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism)
2. WEAK ATHEIST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism)
2. STRONG AGNOSTIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism)
3. WEAK AGNOSTIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism)
4. AGNOSTIC THEIST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism)
-
I see the scale of secularism slides like so
1. STRONG ATHEIST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism)
2. WEAK ATHEIST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism)
2. STRONG AGNOSTIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism)
3. WEAK AGNOSTIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism)
4. AGNOSTIC THEIST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism)
Wikipedia can say whatever it wants.... Doesn't change the fact that atheist used to mean an affirmative belief in the non-existence of god and somewhere along the line people got it all fucked up and now many agnostics call themselves atheists because somewhere along the line they got called out about not being able to prove a negative but didn't want to lose their atheist badge so they changed the meaning of the word.
-
Yeah I can tell by the speed of your post you didn't READ any of that... or even consider what I was saying before you replied to me. Why do I know that? Because I was agreeing with you.
I was agreeing with you.. and also going a step further...
by pointing out that the only real atheism is now called strong atheism...
but that there are TWO categories of agnosticism... strong and weak... and those do have a distinction.
What is now called weak atheism is BS, and is actually a form of agnosticism.
Then of course there is agnostic theism...
-
There was a 14 min interval... Are you calling me stupid? I read just fine. I also fried an egg at the same time. As far as what you said. I noticed both had a #2 beside them. It implies that you think they are equally legitimate terms. Alas, they are now because people are stupid. I don't like it though. It confuses things. Agnostic has always been a big tent. Now both atheist AND agnostic are big overlapping tents. Both words are less accurate for it.
edit: Agnostic is probably no less precise. Atheist definitely is.
-
I see the confusion... no... I don't think they are equally legitimate. I think Weak Atheism is fictional. I was trying to imply that weak atheism and strong agnosticism are one and the same, but that the REAL label for both is simply strong agnosticism.
As far is any implications about your intelligence... No, I was saying that I didn't think you had actually read or considered any of what I posted, even though you were replying directly to me. It seemed like you just assumed I was defending Rillion's position, and therefore struck a defensive stance of your own, whereas I believed if you had spent some more time on the post you were addressing... (mine) you might have noticed that I was agreeing with you.
So, it had nothing to do with intelligence, but rather, patience.
on the last page of this thread, I addressed the exact same comment you did of Rillion's... saying something very similar to your quote of
"that's retarded" but... while annoyingly making use of a dictionary and giving a long explanation. :D
We are generally in agreement about the words atheist and agnostic... It will be up to her to defend her irrational position on this.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism
Strong agnosticism, then, equates to weak atheism. If you assert that we can't know whether or not there is a god, then you do not believe in a god and therefore are a weak atheist.
That's retarded. This is a perfect illustration of how the word atheist got all fucked up. Strong agnostics are exactly that....agnostic. If you think that makes them atheists than that's because your totally unaware that atheism is supposed to mean an affirmative belief in the non-existence of god. Atheists started backpeddling on that when they realized that would make atheism a religion. So guess what all you atheists out there who do not have an affirmative belief in the non-existence of god..... You're agnostic.
There are two categories: theistic and atheistic. Theism is belief, and atheism is unbelief (that is, the lack of). Under these two headings any further specifics of ones personal situation can be listed. For example, under theistic one might put christianity or judaism or hindu. Under atheistic one could put 'hates God' or 'has never heard of God' or maybe even something like buddhism or something. What's unique about agnosticism is that it can feasibly be put under either one of these headings. What it cannot do is be under both of them for one person at one time. Something cannot be both a and not a at the same time in the same way. Agnosticism is an added distinction to either atheism or theism, but can't be both of those at once, and therefore cannot stand by itself. The term agnostic is too ambiguous to not include this distinction. There is an automatic assumption with agnosticism that agnostic atheism is meant, and I guess that's fine, but it's still a form of atheism.
This weak/strong business is silly. Those are not exclusive terms, those are further clarifications, just like agnosticism is.
-
Then you haven't read the defintions for weak and strong agnosticism... it makes a lot of sense, and they are important distinctions...
The weak and strong business is only silly in regards to atheism.
Strong Agnosticism = The existence or lack of existence of a god(s) is UNKNOWABLE.
Weak Agnosticism = The existence or lack of existence of a god(s) is CURRENTLY UNKNOWN, but is not necessarily unknowable.
I think there is a huge difference.
-
Then you haven't read the defintions for weak and strong agnosticism... it makes a lot of sense, and they are important distinctions...
The weak and strong business is only silly in regards to atheism.
I wasn't saying the weak/strong was completely unnecessary, only that they are clarifications of ones position only. I'm willing to concede that using agnostic as an exclusive term might make more sense economically, as saying you were a strong agnostic atheist might get kind of wordy and tiring after a while, but everything I said still stands. Everything in the world is either a or not a. If you are not a CD player then you are logically a not a CD player. If you are not a theist, then it logically follows that you are an atheist.
-
If you are not a theist, then it logically follows that you are an atheist.
While this is technically true. It has also been rapidly discovered that most of the religious (and probably just most PEOPLE) are far too stupid to comprehend the definitions
# theism — roughly, the opinion that gods or deities exist
# atheism — roughly, an absence of belief in any gods or deities
and instead choose to interpret an absence of belief to be the presence of disbelief.
Atheists have generally accepted this to be true. This is why the distinction of AGNOSTIC and ATHEIST was created. For stupid people. Therefore atheist has widely become the accepted term for one who actively believes there is no god(s).
-
Theology is about religion. Not deities. For example buddhism, taoism and other spiritual philosophies would be included in a study of theology whether or not they include deities. So strictly I'd think that a/theist wouldn't be w/ w/o deities but w/ w/o religion. That would put Buddhism on the theism side and leave atheism for those that that don't believe in any sort of theology.
edit: Dictionary.com says that the root theo has to do with deities as does theism but theology does not necessarily. Merriam-Webster says that theism is not just the belief in deity but a creator of humanity. The free dictionary says that theism includes a "supernatural power" but adds "control human destiny". Admittedly I haven't found a definition of "theism" that includes buddhism but I have found a definition of theology that includes buddhism. I think if theology fits than theism must even if no one has written it down.
-
Buddhism is on the theism side becuase they believe in a deity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity).
EDIT: the prefix is THE not THEO.
ology, ocracy, ism... all suffixes.
EDIT #2 from Greek [theorein, theoria]; Latin [theoria]
-
Therefore atheist has widely become the accepted term for one who actively believes there is no god(s).
You're right, but it's still technically incorrect.
Theology is about religion. Not deities. For example buddhism and other spiritual philosophies would be included in a study of theology whether or not they include deities. So strictly I'd think that a/theist wouldn't be w/ w/o deities but w/ w/o religion. That would put Buddhism on the theism side and leave atheism for those that that don't believe in any sort of theology.
I believe that technically the terms a/theism are limited to deities only. Theology is the study of religion, so it follows that this would include study of all religions, not just those involving supernatural beings.
Buddhism is on the theism side becuase they believe in a deity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity).
I pulled Buddhism from Wikipedia itself, which defined it as an atheistic religion. Though after looking again it actually says Zen Buddhism. Maybe there's a difference. I don't know enough about it.
-
hahaha that's great... http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/2136/?letter=T&spage=4
derived from the same word as THEORY. THEOREM. THEORETICAL.
Almost like an ancient joke passed down and hidden in language to pat agnostics on the back.
-
Buddhists don't necessarily believe in a deity... Â Unless you consider Buddha himself a deity.
I got different results for derivations. Â Theoria for theory... Â Theo/Theokratia (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theo-) for theocracy. Â I can't prove it but I bet they have a common root previous to greek.
Where does that put taoism? Â Is taoism atheist? Â It's aDeist for sure but do deist and theist mean the same?
-
From Wikipedia:
There are many religions which are theistic, and many others which are atheistic.
* Some theistic religions are: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Saivism, Vaishnavism, Bahá'Ã, and Sikhism.
* Some atheistic religions are: Taoism, Confucianism, and Zen Buddhism.
-
hahaha that's great... http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/2136/?letter=T&spage=4
derived from the same word as THEORY. THEOREM. THEORETICAL.
Almost like an ancient joke passed down and hidden in language to pat agnostics on the back.
I knew it. Â It's too coincidental to be a coincidence. Â This is fun.... Â I like words.
-
Buddhism is on the theism side becuase they believe in a deity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity).
I pulled Buddhism from Wikipedia itself, which defined it as an atheistic religion. Though after looking again it actually says Zen Buddhism. Maybe there's a difference. I don't know enough about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha
A common misconception views Buddha as the Buddhist counterpart to “God”; Buddhism, however, is non-theistic (i.e., in general it does not teach the existence of a supreme creator god (see God in Buddhism) or depend on any supreme being for enlightenment; Buddha is a guide and teacher who points the way to nirvana).
I think they are quite confused.
At best they are pushing their luck... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana
-
Or in other words, Buddha is a guide and teacher who points the way to 'the highest happiness'. That works.
-
So if theism must include deities than ESP, astral projection, spirit guides, reincarnation etc. can all be included in an "atheistic" worldview..... Â That's what's getting me here. Â I think these are all very theistic though not necessarily deistic. Â If there's no difference than why different words?
Or in other words, Buddha is a guide and teacher who points the way to 'the highest happiness'. That works.
Yeah dude. Buddhism is like taoism that way. But they are both included in theology so why not theism?
edit: FYI.... Buddha also has been quoted as saying "I and the father are one" same as Jesus did but no one accuses Buddha of implying that he is a Zeuslike man on the mountain god taking human form.
-
Please present to me another instance of where one is presented an idea and magically does not form a belief.
What color socks am I wearing right now?
When presented with the Idea of a GOD -
You either
a. Believe in the idea.
b. disbelieve the idea
c. claim to not have enough knowledge.
Right, and many people who admit to not having enough knowledge therefore lack belief. Those who choose not to do this are instead appealing to faith, where belief is a matter of morality (or perhaps, secretly, arrogance) rather than evidence.
Your option of simply lacking belief can only exist in someone who has never even heard the concept of a god.
Surely you've heard of socks, yet you have no idea what color my socks are. You don't even know if I'm wearing socks. So how can you have a belief regarding my socks?
Atheism as you decribe it does not exist. What you are decribing is Agnosticism.
Atheism and agnosticism are terms relating to two different realms: belief and (presumed) knowledge, respectively (go back to the etymology of the words). An atheism is a person who does not believe in gods. An agnostic is a person who does not know whether gods exist or not. Therefore, it is entirely possible to be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time, which is what I am. For that matter, it is also possible to be a gnostic ("strong") atheist (one who claims to know that no gods exist), a gnostic ("strong") theist, or an agnostic ("weak") theist.
The thing is, you can find definitions which say whatever you want...and often disagree with each other. But you need terms in order to convey this difference between believing yourself to know (or not know) about the existence or non-existence of God or gods vs. just believing (or lacking belief) about their existence or non-existence.
I've said this before: Definitions are not right or wrong. They are a matter of consensus, they can be useful or not useful. I think these definitions are more useful than the ones you're going with. I've been in and seen so many arguments about what an atheist is and what a theist is that it simply isn't worth going on about, because it goes nowhere. However, I do think a good argument can be made for trying to be as clear as possible. I almost never tell somebody I'm an atheist without explaining exactly what I mean by that (assuming they don't ask, which they usually do).
I'm sorry if you feel it's a dirty word
I don't feel it's a dirty word; I feel it's inaccurate for what you're trying to describe.
I for one, am proud to say "I don't know"
Me too. It's the only intellectually honest position.
-
Please present to me another instance of where one is presented an idea and magically does not form a belief.
What color socks am I wearing right now?
If I were pressed to answer...
I'd guess that you WERE wearing socks... and I'd guess they were colored.
In order, I thought: purple, pink, blue. Then I thought they were perhaps striped... but I don't know your sense of style well enough to know if you'd adopt a striped sock... so I figured I's stick with a simple solid color.
I'm pretty sure you WERE in fact wearing socks when you asked that question.
Of course I don't know... but I did in fact form a belief. I was forced to.
If someone held a gun to my face and screamed "ANSWER! Was she, or was she not wearing socks! YES or NO! If you say anything else I will shoot you in the face!" I would have to guess based on the belief I formed. I'd say yes.
Of course I don't KNOW if you were wearing socks, and I certainly don't know the color... but guesses come to mind immediately. Those guesses, are beliefs. A rational person does not choose their guesses. Just as I choose not to believe either in the image of an old bearded white man controlling the universe any more than I choose to believe my own notion of a non-corporeal onmiprecient fate. I instead choose to opt to say I don't know, and even lean towards those things NOT existing. The mind creates many fantasies, but we live within our minds... everything we perceive by our 5 senses is in fact interpretted by our brains. Sure you COULD be actually experiencing your reality... (and I know I certainly choose to believe that) or you COULD be a brain in a jar somewhere ( :wink: That was just for you ZF ) All of your beliefs though, most certainly, are a choice.
When presented with the Idea of a GOD -
You either
a. Believe in the idea.
b. disbelieve the idea
c. claim to not have enough knowledge.
Right, and many people who admit to not having enough knowledge therefore lack belief. Those who choose not to do this are instead appealing to faith, where belief is a matter of morality (or perhaps, secretly, arrogance) rather than evidence.
and lacking knowledge is of course... agnosticism. As we have already discussed above the word Atheist implies to most people that you have an active DISBELIEF. Many words are not defined by their literal definitions, but by what society has come to accept.
Your option of simply lacking belief can only exist in someone who has never even heard the concept of a god.
Surely you've heard of socks, yet you have no idea what color my socks are. You don't even know if I'm wearing socks. So how can you have a belief regarding my socks?
The brain takes guesses, and it does not wait to ask whether you want it to. The longer you discuss it, the more options it will explore.
Atheism as you decribe it does not exist. What you are decribing is Agnosticism.
Atheism and agnosticism are terms relating to two different realms: belief and (presumed) knowledge, respectively (go back to the etymology of the words). An atheism is a person who does not believe in gods. An agnostic is a person who does not know whether gods exist or not. Therefore, it is entirely possible to be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time, which is what I am. For that matter, it is also possible to be a gnostic ("strong") atheist (one who claims to know that no gods exist), a gnostic ("strong") theist, or an agnostic ("weak") theist.
The thing is, you can find definitions which say whatever you want...and often disagree with each other. But you need terms in order to convey this difference between believing yourself to know (or not know) about the existence or non-existence of God or gods vs. just believing (or lacking belief) about their existence or non-existence.
I entirely agree with what you've said here on principle. Where I don't agree is with your choice to shorten Agnostic Atheist down to Atheist.
I'll let your next comment back up my point...
I've said this before: Definitions are not right or wrong. They are a matter of consensus, they can be useful or not useful.
Consensus implies that atheist means a DISbeliever. Consensus also IMPLIES that all agnostics are also athiests. To use the words in a manner that is contrary to consensus simply makes for a longer conversation where you waste time explaining all of this to the religious fellow who doesn't really care. (when you could be spending the same time have a conversation about something meaningful)
I think these definitions are more useful than the ones you're going with. I've been in and seen so many arguments about what an atheist is and what a theist is that it simply isn't worth going on about, because it goes nowhere.
Probably due to wasting a lot of time ignoring the standard societal meanings of things. :D
However, I do think a good argument can be made for trying to be as clear as possible. I almost never tell somebody I'm an atheist without explaining exactly what I mean by that (assuming they don't ask, which they usually do).
I'd be all for using the longer term, Agnostic Atheist, with an explanation if you really feel that people need to be educated that not all atheists are strong atheists, and in fact weak atheism can exist. Seems easier to me to call yourself agnostic and let it be implied that you are athiest.
I'm sorry if you feel it's a dirty word
I don't feel it's a dirty word; I feel it's inaccurate for what you're trying to describe.
Again, as has been discussed. In principle.. true. In the reality of society, and definition by consensus, false.
I for one, am proud to say "I don't know"
Me too. It's the only intellectually honest position.
I should add, just becuase you don't know something, doesn't mean you don't have a best guess. Especially if we bring in the - which guess would you say if you were forced - argument.
-
Result of Quiz :: What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03)
created by arocoun To create your own quiz, click here
You scored as Hedonism.
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life�s pleasures as much as you can.
�Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!�
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...
Hedonismb 80%
Existentialism 75%
Nihilism 70%
Strong Egoism 50%
Justice (Fairness) 45%
Utilitarianism 40%
Kantianism 35%
Divine Command 25%
Apathy 20%
-
Johnson....
First, guesses are not beliefs. I could guess all day about what kind of gods there might be (and what colors socks they're wearing) and that doesn't mean I've formed a belief about anything. It's just wild speculation, just like your thoughts about my socks. The only sensible answer for you to give regarding my socks is "I don't know. I have no reason to believe anything in particular about them," which is the same answer I give regarding God. Some gods seem more or less likely than others, just like some socks do. But that's about it. Even if somebody held a gun to my head and said "ANSWER! What kind of god is there?!" I could suggest something, but that doesn't mean I believe it. You can't believe things on command....all you can do is say you do. I couldn't make myself have an opinion about your socks (or gods) if I tried. And if you were omniscient, you could look at my brain and tell the difference.
In order, I thought: purple, pink, blue. Then I thought they were perhaps striped... but I don't know your sense of style well enough to know if you'd adopt a striped sock... so I figured I's stick with a simple solid color.
Close. They were green, yellow, and brown striped. :)
I entirely agree with what you've said here on principle. Where I don't agree is with your choice to shorten Agnostic Atheist down to Atheist.
I haven't. The fact is that I am an atheist, and if somebody is curious about what kind of atheist I am, I can tell them that I am an agnostic atheist (no need for capital letters; it's not a title).
Consensus implies that atheist means a DISbeliever.
This may be so (I am not actually sure it is), however it A) does not follow the etymology of the word, and B) does not allow for preciseness in terms of clarifying knowledge vs. belief. So I don't use it. Generally speaking, labels (especially religious ones) don't imply much about your actual beliefs anyway. And contrary to what you might believe, I don't generally go around telling people that I have any particular label regarding religious belief. Most of the time I find it irrelevant.
-
Johnson....
First, guesses are not beliefs. I could guess all day about what kind of gods there might be (and what colors socks they're wearing) and that doesn't mean I've formed a belief about anything. It's just wild speculation, just like your thoughts about my socks. The only sensible answer for you to give regarding my socks is "I don't know. I have no reason to believe anything in particular about them," which is the same answer I give regarding God. Some gods seem more or less likely than others, just like some socks do. But that's about it. Even if somebody held a gun to my head and said "ANSWER! What kind of god is there?!" I could suggest something, but that doesn't mean I believe it.
I'm sorry if I can't agree with you that the entire religion of say... Christianity... or... Catholocism... is anything more than a guess. Seeing as EVERYTHING in the religion links to, and hinges upon, something for which there is absolutely no evidence... It's a guess. A guess, is absolutley a belief, the only thing you are discussing with me, is degrees of willingness to take action based upon that guess/belief. The willingness to take action, really doesn't change the ephemeral and ridiculous nature of what a belief is.
You can't believe things on command....all you can do is say you do. I couldn't make myself have an opinion about your socks (or gods) if I tried. And if you were omniscient, you could look at my brain and tell the difference.
Really? I don't believe that. People make guesses. It's what our brain as a self organizing system does. Sure, maybe YOU aren't willing to take action on it. YOU are also not the type of person to believe in a god for which there is no evidence, just as you are not willing to kill for that same idea. People believe things on command all the time, what do you think church is for? or the concepts of sins and hellfire and damnation? http://www.prisonexp.org/
In order, I thought: purple, pink, blue. Then I thought they were perhaps striped... but I don't know your sense of style well enough to know if you'd adopt a striped sock... so I figured I's stick with a simple solid color.
Close. They were green, yellow, and brown striped. :)
Damn, I forgot my psyhic projection sees everything as a negative! 8)
I entirely agree with what you've said here on principle. Where I don't agree is with your choice to shorten Agnostic Atheist down to Atheist.
I haven't. The fact is that I am an atheist, and if somebody is curious about what kind of atheist I am, I can tell them that I am an agnostic atheist (no need for capital letters; it's not a title).
It is if you do it right! (I'll eat your entrails on my TUMMY!)
(http://cuteotters.com/uploads/Cute_Otter_084.jpg)
Consensus implies that atheist means a DISbeliever.
This may be so (I am not actually sure it is), however it A) does not follow the etymology of the word, and B) does not allow for preciseness in terms of clarifying knowledge vs. belief. So I don't use it. Generally speaking, labels (especially religious ones) don't imply much about your actual beliefs anyway. And contrary to what you might believe, I don't generally go around telling people that I have any particular label regarding religious belief. Most of the time I find it irrelevant.
Oh, that's sad. I guess it's sort of Jeffersonian. I think it's important to question irrational things as often as possible. I hate the fact that society has settled to this conclusion that ettiquette demands that any religious claims go unquestioned in polite company, no matter how ridiculous they might be. I side with Sam Harris on this one, I think it's time to question religion as often as any other irrationality would be questioned. To that end, I do often broadcast my stances on religion... You can call me a prostelyzer... or a peace activist... whichever. ;) (I, of course, think the notion presented in that southpark episode that atheists would find something silly to have wars over in lieu of religion is totally inaccurate)
-
I'm sorry if I can't agree with you that the entire religion of say... Christianity... or... Catholocism... is anything more than a guess. Seeing as EVERYTHING in the religion links to, and hinges upon, something for which there is absolutely no evidence... It's a guess.
Next time you talk to a Christian, ask him if his belief system is a guess. What do you think he's going to say?
Again, you're re-interpreting other people's beliefs according to what you believe to be their logical conclusion. You might think there's no evidence for religious belief (and I would agree with you), but a lot of religious people feel very differently. They might call it faith, but if there's no evidence whatsoever then they might as well believe one religion as another, and that idea is of course anathema since most religions by far are exclusivist. They are not guessers. They are believers.
A guess, is absolutley a belief
Eh, no, we're just not gonna agree on this one. I believe I am wearing a blue t-shirt right now-- I don't need to guess, because I can just look down at it. I have to guess what color shirt you are wearing. They are two entirely different modes of thinking.
People believe things on command all the time, what do you think church is for?
They don't believe simply because they are commanded. They believe because they have already bought into the system, and the things they are told in church are part of that system. If, in your opinion, there is a reason (however idiotic) for believing something, then you are not believing it merely on command.
And by the way, i don't think church is really for making people believe things....it's more for making people feel good about what they already believe.
Damn, I forgot my psyhic projection sees everything as a negative! Cool
Spooky!
I think it's important to question irrational things as often as possible. I hate the fact that society has settled to this conclusion that ettiquette demands that any religious claims go unquestioned in polite company, no matter how ridiculous they might be.
Oh, it's not out of etiquette....it's because I spend a good twelve hours a day thinking and reading about religion, so my own beliefs about it sort of become beside the point. Not to mention, I think all of my friends, and most everybody I interact with on a daily basis, is also an atheist or at least a benign "something-ist." Tell them you're an atheist and response is "Okay, so what?" I went to a conference last week on various topics related to evolution and religion, and at dinner that night we went around the table telling our "de-conversion" story. The guy to my left was a former theologian who now leads a crusade (har) to keep theology from being taught at American state universities.
As for the irrationality-- I already know religion is not rational, in the sense of interpreting the world accurately. What I find more interesting is how it might be rational in terms of people's psychology, and in terms of our evolution. Why does religion exist? What purpose might it serve that keeps it sticking around? Might it be adaptive, wholly or in part, or might it be a byproduct of something else? The sort of thing Daniel Dennett talks about in his recent book Breaking the Spell. If you haven't read it already, I would strongly recommend it.
Also, you might be interested in this article in Wired: "The Church of Non-Believers" http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html
-
Kantian-Hedonist. EVERYONE gets laid.
Kantianism 80%
Hedonism 70%
Strong Egoism 65%
Existentialism 55%
Justice (Fairness) 50%
Utilitarianism 35%
Nihilism 20%
Apathy 10%
Divine Command 0%
-
Kantian-Hedonist. EVERYONE gets laid.
This is definitely the type of person you want to hang out with.
-
thanks, when are you and the big T moving to NH?
-
Damnit, I want to get laid. Where are the invitations?
-
Damnit, I want to get laid. Where are the invitations?
Seconded.
-
Strong Egoism
90%
Existentialism
70%
Kantianism
65%
Justice (Fairness)
60%
Hedonism
55%
Utilitarianism
25%
Nihilism
10%
Apathy
0%
Divine Command
0%
-
You scored as Hedonism.
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life?s pleasures as much as you can.
?Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!?
Existentialism 100%
Hedonism 100%
Utilitarianism 75%
Justice (Fairness) 75%
Strong Egoism 65%
Kantianism 40%
Nihilism 20%
Divine Command 0%
Apathy 0%
Its funny, I think that I am probably a little more Utilitarian, than Hedonistic or Existential. Oh well.
-
You scored as Hedonism. (I really suspect this is going to be very popular among Libertarians as and outcome.)
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life�s pleasures as much as you can.
�Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!�
Hedonism 85%
Existentialism 80% (I also think this will be popular among Libertarians.)
Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”
“It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.”
--Jean-Paul Sartre
“It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.”
--Blaise Pascal
Strong Egoism 55% (This too seemed to be Libertarian in nature.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoism This linked article claims Harry Brown and Ayn Rand were both advocates for Egoism.
Justice (Fairness) 50%
Apathy 40%
Kantianism 35%
Utilitarianism 30%
Nihilism 30%
Divine Command 10%
-
You scored as Hedonism.
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life�s pleasures as much as you can.
�Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!�
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...
Hedonism
100%
Kantianism
95%
Existentialism
95%
Utilitarianism
70%
Strong Egoism
70%
Justice (Fairness)
50%
Nihilism
30%
Apathy
0%
Divine Command
0%
-
You scored as a Hedonism
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life’s pleasures as much as you can.
“Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!”
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arocoun)
Hedonism
100%
Existentialism
80%
Justice (Fairness)
70%
Strong Egoism
65%
Kantianism
65%
Utilitarianism
60%
Nihilism
45%
Apathy
40%
Divine Command
0%
Really, the questions are all leading so I had to interpret and tactically choose them, trying to figure out what they were really saying. I mean, I could say that the ultimate purpose is 'for all to have happiness' but the test doesn't take into account that I believe that will happen if the free market is allowed to exist and the state stops meddling and stealing - it probably thinks I am into state theft if I answer that. I couldn't know. And so on.
-
What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03)
You scored as a Hedonism
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life’s pleasures as much as you can.
“Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!”
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arocoun)
Hedonism
80%
Strong Egoism
75%
Existentialism
75%
Justice (Fairness)
50%
Utilitarianism
45%
Kantianism
40%
Nihilism
35%
Apathy
25%
Divine Command
0%
-
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism. You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life’s pleasures as much as you can.
“Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!”
Life is the great indulgence, death is the great abstinence.
-
My top three were Existentialism, Hedonism, and Justice with 90%, 85%, and 80% respectively. Following that I got Kantianism, Strong Egoism, and Utilitarianism (75%, 60%, 60%). The rest were below 20%.
-
What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03)
You scored as a Strong Egoism
Your life is very much guided by the concept of Egoism: You work primarily to promote your own interests.
“I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
“I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.”
--Ayn Rand
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arocoun)
Strong Egoism
85%
Hedonism
75%
Existentialism
75%
Utilitarianism
70%
Justice (Fairness)
65%
Apathy
45%
Kantianism
45%
Nihilism
45%
Divine Command
0%
-
It was a while since I last did this so I took it again for kicks:
You scored as a Strong Egoism
Your life is very much guided by the concept of Egoism: You work primarily to promote your own interests.
“I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
“I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.”
--Ayn Rand
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arocoun)
Strong Egoism 100%
Hedonism 90%
Existentialism 75%
Justice (Fairness) 70%
Kantianism 65%
Nihilism 20%
Apathy 15%
Utilitarianism 15%
Divine Command 0%
I've change a bit since the last time... :shock:
-
You scored as a Existentialism
Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”
“It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.”
--Jean-Paul Sartre
“It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.”
--Blaise Pascal
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arocoun)
Kantianism 100%
Existentialism 100%
Hedonism 75%
Justice (Fairness) 50%
Strong Egoism 30%
Utilitarianism 15%
Apathy 5%
Nihilism 0%
Divine Command 0%
It's hard to imagine how a Libertarian could ever be Utilitarian. Aren't those nearly diametrically opposed concepts? I suppose one could be Libertarian because he believes it works best rather than on principle.
-
Existentialism 90%
Justice (Fairness) 75%
Hedonism 75%
Kantianism 70%
Strong Egoism 60%
Nihilism 60%
Utilitarianism 40%
Apathy 5%
Divine Command 0%
-
Strong Egoist.
All of the Kantians should die.
-
All of the Kantians should die.
I don't even know what that is and yet I scored 100% for that AND Existentialism. So I need to die? What exactly am I guilty of?
-
I took this again, before I was a hedonist, but now...
You Scored as Existentialism
Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”
“It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.”
--Jean-Paul Sartre
“It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.”
Existentialism
95%
Strong Egoism
85%
Justice (Fairness)
80%
Hedonism
75%
Nihilism
50%
Utilitarianism
45%
Kantianism
35%
Apathy
10%
Divine Command
-
You Scored as Strong Egoism
Your life is very much guided by the concept of Egoism: You work primarily to promote your own interests.
“I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
“I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.”
--Ayn Rand
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arocoun)
Existentialism 100%
Strong Egoism 100%
Kantianism 95%
Hedonism 75%
Justice (Fairness) 75%
Nihilism 40%
Utilitarianism 15%
Apathy 0%
Divine Command 0%
-
You Scored as Existentialism
Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”
“It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.”
--Jean-Paul Sartre
“It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.”
--Blaise Pascal
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arocoun)
Existentialism
85%
Utilitarianism
65%
Kantianism
65%
Hedonism
60%
Strong Egoism
60%
Justice (Fairness)
50%
Divine Command
35%
Nihilism
30%
Apathy
10%
-
You Scored as Existentialism
Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”
“It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.”
--Jean-Paul Sartre
“It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.”
--Blaise Pascal
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arocoun)
Existentialism
85%
Strong Egoism
85%
Hedonism
80%
Justice (Fairness)
75%
Kantianism
50%
Divine Command
35%
Utilitarianism
35%
Nihilism
25%
Apathy
15%
I think the Divine Command part may be misunderstood, because my God Concept is Taoist / Panatheistic and not Anthropomorphic. So when answering the "God" questions, I interpreted them as my version of "God", not the traditional, western version.
-
I'm all about Existentialism on this biznitch