greyl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-22-06 01:38 PM
Original message |
| Margaret Atwood: "Atheism is a religion" |
|
There was a thread about this episode of Moyers on Faith & Reason already, but it got very little response. There's more to discuss than just her statement of atheism, but I thought that would make the best title. ;) ... BILL MOYERS: Does that mean you take your stand on the side of faith? MARGARET ATWOOD: No, no having been raised a strict agnostic. BILL MOYERS: A strict agnostic? MARGARET ATWOOD: Strict agnostic. BILL MOYERS: Not an atheist? MARGARET ATWOOD: No, atheism- BILL MOYERS: What's the difference? MARGARET ATWOOD: -- is a religion. BILL MOYERS: Atheism is a religion? MARGARET ATWOOD: Absolutely. BILL MOYERS: You mean it's dogmatic? MARGARET ATWOOD: Absolutely dogmatic. BILL MOYERS: How so? MARGARET ATWOOD: Well it makes an absolute stand about something that cannot be proven. BILL MOYERS: There is no God. MARGARET ATWOOD: You can't prove that. BILL MOYERS: So you become-- what' a strict agnostic? MARGARET ATWOOD: A strict agnostic says, you cannot pronounce, as knowledge, anything you cannot demonstrate. In other words if you're going to call it knowledge you have to be able to run an experiment on it that's repeatable. You can't run an experiment on whether God exists or not, therefore you can't say anything about it as knowledge. You can have a belief if you want to, or if that is what grabs you, if you were called in that direction, if you have a subjective experience of that kind, that would be your belief system. You just can't call it knowledge. more
|
| -Margaret Atwood: "Atheism is a religion" |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 01:38 PM |
#0 |
-
I'm getting under the desk and not coming out until this is over |
TallahasseeGrannie |
Sep-22-06 01:40 PM |
#1 |
 -
that might be a good idea. Too bad I'm not that smart. |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 01:50 PM |
#5 |
 -
Good on ya, Grannie |
Warpy |
Sep-22-06 01:53 PM |
#8 |
 -
LOL. Room in there for another? nt |
JerseygirlCT |
Sep-22-06 08:17 PM |
#59 |
  -
You know, I might just peek out |
TallahasseeGrannie |
Sep-23-06 07:27 AM |
#81 |
 -
Shazaam! ANOTHER new church? |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-23-06 07:47 AM |
#82 |
 -
See now, we'd get along nicely on all counts! nt |
JerseygirlCT |
Sep-23-06 07:57 AM |
#83 |
 -
move over girl |
dwickham |
Sep-24-06 06:08 PM |
#107 |
 -
Is there room under there for me, |
Dorian Gray |
Sep-25-06 02:38 PM |
#132 |
-
Yeah, and I'm a confirmed atheist |
TechBear_Seattle |
Sep-22-06 01:40 PM |
#2 |
 -
Militant agnostic: |
SCantiGOP |
Sep-22-06 02:31 PM |
#26 |
  -
I like that. :) nt |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 03:15 PM |
#46 |
 -
oooooh |
TallahasseeGrannie |
Sep-23-06 10:46 AM |
#88 |
-
It depends on the definitions one uses.... |
eallen |
Sep-22-06 01:40 PM |
#3 |
 -
Right. Is atheism an "absolute stand"? |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:01 PM |
#12 |
-
I have to agree with Margaret on this one |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 01:49 PM |
#4 |
 -
But do you have |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 01:53 PM |
#7 |
  -
Exactly, so I would ignore the question |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 01:59 PM |
#10 |
   -
But ignoring it doesn't address the question. |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 02:37 PM |
#31 |
  -
Perhaps it's the non answer answer. |
Javaman |
Sep-22-06 03:13 PM |
#44 |
  -
Sorry, that could be tested, too. nt |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:33 PM |
#28 |
 -
OK, test it. |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 02:36 PM |
#30 |
 -
It would be just like testing auras. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:48 PM |
#37 |
  -
Apparently I am the only one chosen |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 03:02 PM |
#40 |
 -
No problem. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 03:14 PM |
#45 |
 -
It doesn't need a VIN |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 03:28 PM |
#48 |
 -
What do you mean by "Porsche" then? |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 03:40 PM |
#52 |
 -
I'm not moving the goal posts |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 09:02 PM |
#60 |
 -
You'll have to play along or forfeit your case. |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:18 AM |
#67 |
 -
Fine, but this is the ultimate Porsche |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-24-06 11:16 AM |
#103 |
 -
Is it that way with all liquids? |
greyl |
Sep-25-06 10:45 AM |
#122 |
 -
It runs |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-25-06 11:15 AM |
#126 |
 -
So, you're saying it's an internal combustion engine |
greyl |
Sep-25-06 11:35 AM |
#128 |
 -
My magic Porsche also transcends combustion |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-25-06 01:51 PM |
#130 |
 -
Not quite analogous |
Donald Ian Rankin |
Sep-23-06 06:07 PM |
#96 |
 -
I see no real difference between your examples |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-24-06 11:14 AM |
#102 |
 -
The definitions of "demon" and "porsche". |
Donald Ian Rankin |
Sep-25-06 08:55 AM |
#117 |
 -
First of all I said "magical Porsche" |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-25-06 11:14 AM |
#125 |
 -
My Atheism is based on reason. |
Odin2005 |
Sep-22-06 02:22 PM |
#18 |
-
Yes, but can your reason positively prove that there is no God? |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 02:25 PM |
#21 |
-
I'm sure it is. However, |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:26 PM |
#22 |
-
Let me name some other religions: |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 01:51 PM |
#6 |
 -
Those statements can all be proven, thus they aren't religions. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 01:57 PM |
#9 |
  -
So how does one go about proving a negative? n/t |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 02:00 PM |
#11 |
   -
It totally depends on the negative, but it can be done. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:04 PM |
#14 |
    -
I have always understood logic to assert that "that which is not, |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 02:17 PM |
#15 |
     -
I think that's a bit of a myth. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:23 PM |
#19 |
      -
Myth? Seems pretty straight ahead to me. n/t |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 02:39 PM |
#34 |
     -
However, many atheists do NOT assert that the premise is false. |
Zhade |
Sep-23-06 04:02 PM |
#93 |
    -
There is no elephant in my office. Come look, and you'll see. |
eallen |
Sep-22-06 02:24 PM |
#20 |
   -
Right. "I'm Not a Giraffe, and I Can Prove It" R. Steiner. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:29 PM |
#24 |
   -
Yes, but you can only prove it because Giraffe's exist. |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 02:38 PM |
#32 |
   -
Yes, but I could choose anything which does, in fact, exist. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:51 PM |
#38 |
    -
Well that begs the question. |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 03:03 PM |
#41 |
   -
Naw, that's a different argument. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 03:26 PM |
#47 |
    -
There is a big difference between |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 03:30 PM |
#49 |
   -
Yes, there is. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 03:34 PM |
#51 |
   -
You need to make some some leaps to get away from Atwood |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 09:05 PM |
#61 |
   -
I think it can be proven that unicorns don't exist, |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:26 AM |
#68 |
   -
LOL, and therein is the crux of the argument. n/t |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 03:32 PM |
#50 |
   -
There are no mammals with six legs. There are no... |
eallen |
Sep-22-06 05:21 PM |
#54 |
   -
And there is no end in sight to this debate. I knew I shouldn't have |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 06:38 PM |
#57 |
    -
Sure there is. |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:28 AM |
#70 |
   -
Some negatives can be proven, indeed. |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:27 AM |
#69 |
   -
Ooh, I'd be careful with that first claim. |
trotsky |
Sep-23-06 09:28 AM |
#85 |
   -
Some more examples |
moggie |
Sep-25-06 03:12 AM |
#114 |
  -
Nice explanation of the situation. |
greyl |
Sep-25-06 10:22 AM |
#121 |
  -
causin trouble again |
Jim4Wes |
Sep-22-06 02:04 PM |
#13 |
   -
I've always enjoyed jumping into a big pile of neatly raked leaves. ;) nt |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:18 PM |
#16 |
  -
How can they be proven? |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 02:38 PM |
#33 |
   -
We'd need to define the concepts in the statements. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:55 PM |
#39 |
  -
But what Atwood is ignorant of, apparently, is that not all atheists... |
Zhade |
Sep-23-06 03:58 PM |
#92 |
  -
"There's no word for someone who doesn't believe in astrology." |
SheWhoMustBeObeyed |
Sep-25-06 01:33 PM |
#129 |
 -
Well, the reason some Christians do it is that they apparently have a need |
Heaven and Earth |
Sep-23-06 12:49 PM |
#89 |
-
The atheists I know personally |
SheilaT |
Sep-22-06 02:20 PM |
#17 |
 -
You think that atheists depend on other for their beliefs? |
muriel_volestrangler |
Sep-23-06 06:33 AM |
#73 |
-
Rubbish. Christians try to project their world view onto everything... |
Union Thug |
Sep-22-06 02:27 PM |
#23 |
 -
That may be true, but Atwood is no Christian. nt |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:30 PM |
#25 |
-
Let me clarify... Atwood is citing the most common xtian argument |
Union Thug |
Sep-22-06 02:34 PM |
#29 |
-
Then you'd be agnostic, right? nt |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:40 PM |
#36 |
-
No, he'd be an agnostic atheist. nt |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-22-06 06:23 PM |
#56 |
 -
Isn't the term "weak atheist"? |
Donald Ian Rankin |
Sep-23-06 06:12 PM |
#97 |
-
Both terms are correct. |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-23-06 07:52 PM |
#98 |
 -
You can't be an atheist with regards to a set God, can you? |
Donald Ian Rankin |
Sep-24-06 02:39 AM |
#99 |
-
Again, there are different types of atheism. |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-24-06 02:51 AM |
#100 |
-
Well, I'll answer. Don't mind do you Bmus? |
Random_Australian |
Sep-24-06 07:12 AM |
#101 |
 -
Of course not! |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-24-06 11:09 PM |
#110 |
  -
Check your pm for the only God I don't have a solution for, in a little |
Random_Australian |
Sep-24-06 11:35 PM |
#113 |
 -
I think that being an atheist with respect to specific gods |
Donald Ian Rankin |
Sep-25-06 08:49 AM |
#115 |
-
Assumptions? Puh! Watch this! |
Random_Australian |
Sep-25-06 09:10 AM |
#120 |
 -
Always entertaining, RA |
moggie |
Sep-25-06 04:53 PM |
#134 |
-
*takes bow* I do my best. However, I shant be able to drink wine |
Random_Australian |
Sep-25-06 06:48 PM |
#136 |
-
Then perhaps you should look up the argument from divine hiddeness |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-25-06 02:24 PM |
#131 |
-
Dude, I hate to break this to you |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-24-06 11:19 AM |
#104 |
-
And this: |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-24-06 11:17 PM |
#111 |
-
To a mathematician, a frog can be whatever you choose to define it as. |
Donald Ian Rankin |
Sep-25-06 08:52 AM |
#116 |
-
Moot point. |
Random_Australian |
Sep-25-06 09:00 AM |
#119 |
-
I was just trying to be funny. |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-25-06 11:18 AM |
#127 |
-
Bad whackjob fundamentalist atheist preacher! |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-25-06 11:09 PM |
#138 |
-
Here is the problem: Belief vs. Reason |
smirkymonkey |
Sep-24-06 12:33 PM |
#106 |
-
Not agnostic. Atheist. |
Union Thug |
Sep-22-06 09:39 PM |
#62 |
-
It's a matter of definition. |
IMModerate |
Sep-23-06 01:00 AM |
#63 |
-
What's the difference? nt |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:40 AM |
#75 |
-
Analysis: |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-23-06 07:11 AM |
#77 |
-
greyl, I would have expected more from you. |
trotsky |
Sep-22-06 02:32 PM |
#27 |
 -
:) I'm still trying to work the issue out for myself. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:39 PM |
#35 |
-
And I assert one doesn't have to have full knowledge... |
trotsky |
Sep-23-06 09:35 AM |
#86 |
-
One doesn't need to waver between them, as they are distinctly... |
Zhade |
Sep-23-06 04:12 PM |
#94 |
-
This should be good... |
Javaman |
Sep-22-06 03:12 PM |
#42 |
-
Uh oh |
omega minimo |
Sep-22-06 03:12 PM |
#43 |
-
I don't see anything wrong |
bloom |
Sep-22-06 05:05 PM |
#53 |
-
BMUS: "Margaret Atwood is a moron." |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-22-06 06:20 PM |
#55 |
 -
You extremist Atwood-bashing atheist whackjob. |
neebob |
Sep-23-06 01:38 AM |
#64 |
  -
It says here I am required to gush. |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-23-06 05:39 AM |
#65 |
 -
Yes, please, |
neebob |
Sep-23-06 02:21 PM |
#90 |
 -
It doesn't depend on the definition of atheism? |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:31 AM |
#71 |
-
She says atheism is a religion, do you agree with that? |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-23-06 07:08 AM |
#76 |
-
Depends on the definition of atheism. |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 07:16 AM |
#78 |
 -
I'm saying she's an idiot who didn't bother to research the subject |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-23-06 07:21 AM |
#80 |
 -
"strong atheism is dogmatic" is closer to the truth of the matter. |
Zhade |
Sep-23-06 04:23 PM |
#95 |
-
I agree, having been one on occasion. :) nt |
greyl |
Sep-25-06 10:48 AM |
#123 |
-
No, That Is Idiotic |
Southpawkicker |
Sep-24-06 08:18 PM |
#108 |
-
.... |
Random_Australian |
Sep-24-06 10:39 PM |
#109 |
-
Thanks, SPK! |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-24-06 11:19 PM |
#112 |
-
Teachability |
Southpawkicker |
Sep-25-06 09:47 PM |
#137 |
-
She doesn't understand atheism and agnostic definitions. |
ozone_man |
Sep-22-06 07:13 PM |
#58 |
 -
What do we call someone who positively asserts there is no God? nt |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:32 AM |
#72 |
-
A strong atheist. |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-23-06 07:18 AM |
#79 |
-
It comes down to the precise definitions you use |
muriel_volestrangler |
Sep-23-06 06:17 AM |
#66 |
 -
I agree. Dawkins is agreeing with Atwood on a point: |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:38 AM |
#74 |
-
I wish it was! |
Finder |
Sep-23-06 08:40 AM |
#84 |
-
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby |
Caution |
Sep-23-06 09:54 AM |
#87 |
 -
And Margaret Atwood is an idiot |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-24-06 11:22 AM |
#105 |
-
Absolutely false, for reasons already explained. |
Zhade |
Sep-23-06 03:17 PM |
#91 |
-
This is the same Margaret Atwood... |
moggie |
Sep-25-06 08:59 AM |
#118 |
 -
She said that??? |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-25-06 11:22 PM |
#140 |
-
"What Was She Thinking?" - atheism.about.com |
greyl |
Sep-25-06 10:58 AM |
#124 |
 -
Yes, I was quite dissapointed in her stance. |
catbert836 |
Sep-25-06 03:46 PM |
#133 |
 -
"Arrogance of Agnosticism" |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-25-06 11:17 PM |
#139 |
-
Atwood seems to have missed something... |
and-justice-for-all |
Sep-25-06 05:47 PM |
#135 |
-
I know we bounce around our terms here all the time on R/T |
TallahasseeGrannie |
Sep-26-06 08:06 AM |
#141 |
 -
Does radical = fundamentalist? |
varkam |
Sep-28-06 10:41 PM |
#143 |
-
yeah, and BALDNESS is a HAIR COLOR... |
NAO |
Sep-28-06 10:29 PM |
#142 |