236 replies to this topic

[Fearsome Fred]

Well, by my count, this thread contains (in RL):

13 self-identified Atheists.
3 self-identified Agnostics/Nonbelievers.
3 self-identified Christians.
1 self-identified Taoist/Animist.

Is this imbalance a feature of net-culture?  Or are die hard GRRM fans that radically out of line with the general population?

[Erinne]

I thought agnosticism was the idea that it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not.

ETA: So agnostic =/= nonbeliever, as an agnostic can still believe in a god - belief is different from knowledge.

Edited by Erinne, 06 February 2012 - 06:43 PM.

[Fearsome Fred]

Erinne, on 06 February 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

I thought agnosticism was the idea that it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not.

That's just another definition.  Don't take it too seriously.

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Ndrew of Typhgarian, on 06 February 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

Well Agnostics are not sure, how could we be? But Atheists are, well, they kind of force the "religion" of a lack of god on to you. But whatever. bugger atheists, bugger belivers, bugger you. (Sorry, been reading way to much ASOIAF, {who can relate lol})

Agnosticism: An acknowledgment that mere mortal men cannot possess any actual knowledge of gods, regardless whether one does or doesn’t believe in such things.

Agnostics believe it's impossible for anyone to tell whether there is a god or not, now or ever. If that doesn't apply to you, then you aren't an Agnostic, I'm not trying to define what you believe, but to point out you're using the term incorrectly. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge and is not a religious position.

[The King in the South]

edit: Nvm, question was answered

Edited by The King in the South, 06 February 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[Fearsome Fred]

Rand Sand, on 06 February 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

Agnostics believe it's impossible for anyone to tell whether there is a god or not, now or ever. If that doesn't apply to you, then you aren't an Agnostic, I'm not trying to define what you believe, but to point out you're using the term incorrectly.

And yet, you have no authority to play word police.  The definition of "agnostic" that you reject and call "incorrect", is in fact in prevalent and widespread use.

[Erinne]

Fearsome Fred, on 06 February 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

That's just another definition.  Don't take it too seriously.

What, me? I ain't even mad. You're right of course, it is just semantics, but I feel this definition of agnostic is more useful than "people who can't make up their mind".

As for me, I'm a godless heathen. If I were in Westeros, I'd probably become a dystheist, that seems like a reasonable belief considering the setting.

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Fearsome Fred, on 06 February 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

And yet, you have no authority to play word police.  The definition of "agnostic" that you reject and call "incorrect", is in fact in prevalent and widespread use.

Widespread use of an incorrect definition doesn't make it correct. Vocabulary isn't a democracy.

[Fearsome Fred]

Rand Sand, on 06 February 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

Widespread use of an incorrect definition doesn't make it correct.

Yes, it does.

Quote

Vocabulary isn't a democracy.

It is hard to think of anything more democratic.

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Fearsome Fred, on 06 February 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

Yes, it does.



It is hard to think of anything more democratic.

No, it doesn't. And it's easy if you try.

Edited by Rand Sand, 06 February 2012 - 07:04 PM.

[Fearsome Fred]

Rand Sand, on 06 February 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

No, it doesn't. And it's easy if you try.

Yes.  With a little effort, all those people in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal could speak Latin correctly, rather than incorrectly.

Edited by Fearsome Fred, 06 February 2012 - 07:06 PM.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

Fearsome Fred, on 06 February 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Well, by my count, this thread contains (in RL):

13 self-identified Atheists.
3 self-identified Agnostics/Nonbelievers.
3 self-identified Christians.
1 self-identified Taoist/Animist.

Is this imbalance a feature of net-culture?  Or are die hard GRRM fans that radically out of line with the general population?

Are you accounting for people who think it's rude to discuss their religious beliefs?

[Nev yn]

Quote

I thought agnosticism was the idea that it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not.

This is sometimes referred to as strong agnosticism.  Weak agnosticism would be how most people in this thread have been using the term "agnosticism".  Language being fluid, and the internet leaning towards younger audiences, agnosticism and weak agnosticism are usually used interchangeably for "one whose mind is open".

[Lady Octarina]

Okay, everyone, let's settle this down for once. Languages only matter as to how people use them, if they make the others understand them or not. Period. People disagreeing on what a word means only tell me that language is not fulfilling its purpose here.

"Gnosis" means knowledge. "A" is a particle that means "not", denial in general. So there you have it, the original meaning for "agnostic".

Edited by Lady Octarina, 06 February 2012 - 07:13 PM.

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Fearsome Fred, on 06 February 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Yes.  With a little effort, all those people in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal could speak Latin correctly, rather than incorrectly.

*Facepalm*

Did you seriously just use the origin of multiple languages from a single mother language as an example that incorrect definitions if used enough makes a new definition...

[Fearsome Fred]

Arch-MaesterPhilip, on 06 February 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

Are you accounting for people who think it's rude to discuss their religious beliefs?

I'm not "accounting", only "counting".  And I only count the self-identified.  So of those who think it is rude to identify one's religious beliefs, I only count the rude ones.

Edit:  Out of curiosity, do you think that it is rude to identify one's religious beliefs?  And does this rule apply only to the religious, and not to atheists/agnostics?

Edited by Fearsome Fred, 06 February 2012 - 07:20 PM.

[Fearsome Fred]

Rand Sand, on 06 February 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

*Facepalm*

Did you seriously just use the origin of multiple languages from a single mother language as an example that incorrect definitions if used enough makes a new definition...

No.   The evolution of language  also involves "incorrect" spelling, "Incorrect" grammar, and "incorrect" pronunciation.

Please note that it is you that have declared on your own authority, that a certain definition of "agnostic" is "incorrect", even though that definition is supported by virtually all dictionaries.

Edited by Fearsome Fred, 06 February 2012 - 07:24 PM.

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Fearsome Fred, on 06 February 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

No.   The evolution of language  also involves "incorrect" spelling, "Incorrect" grammar, and "incorrect" pronunciation.

Please note that it is you that have declared on your own authority, that a certain definition of "agnostic" is "incorrect", even though that definition is supported by virtually all dictionaries.

May you please present one Latin word that is now known as a Spanish, French, or Portuguese word through incorrect spelling, grammar, or pronunciation.

" "Gnosis" means knowledge. "A" is a particle that means "not", denial in general. So there you have it, the original meaning for "agnostic"." It doesn't matter how many common dictionary definitions you can come up with, if it goes against its root words, it's wrong. Just like the Greek A - Theos. A meaning "Without" and Theos meaning "god". This is why people are also incorrect (Not saying you have claimed this.) when they say that Atheism is the belief that there is no god, when it is really a lack of belief in said deities. This is inexcusable and is blatantly a means for the end of the person claiming it.

Edited by Rand Sand, 06 February 2012 - 10:41 PM.

[Fearsome Fred]

Rand Sand wrote:

Quote

May you please present one Latin word that is now known as a Spanish, French, or Portuguese word through incorrect spelling, grammar, or pronunciation.

I could name countless examples.  But "incorrect" is your word.  I merely pointed out that the evolution of language (for example, from ancient Latin to modern Italian) is determined by how people ACTUALLY use words, not by how they are "supposed" to use them.

Quote

" "Gnosis" means knowledge. "A" is a particle that means "not", denial in general. So there you have it, the original meaning for "agnostic"."

That supports either definition.

Quote

It doesn't matter how many common dictionary definitions you can come up with, if it goes against its root words, it's wrong.

Tell this to a linguist or  lexicographer, and watch him laugh at you.

I can only agree that, for uncommon words used only in technical and educated circles, knowledge of the Greek or Latin root can be used to promote an agreed-upon "correct" meaning.  However, once a word leaves the ivory tower and enters common usage, all bets are off.

The original meaning of the word "romance" is a story or poem told in a Romance language, such as French, which in turn are so-called because they are influenced by the language of the Roman Empire, which was Latin.  Because the popularity of the French-composed King Arthur stories, a "romance" came to mean a long and convoluted story about knights, ladies, sorcerors, giants and/or fairies, or by further extension, any story featuring the supernatural.  In Victorian times, ASOIAF would have been classified as a "romance" (though it probably would have been burned first, unless heavily edited).  By further extension and confusion, a "romance" came to mean a "love story".  By further extension or confusion, a "romance" came to mean a "love affair".  Language evolves, and the word-police cannot stop it.

[RobertOfTheHouseBaratheon]

Meanwhile back on topic.

I think most people would be religious, though it would depend on your financial situation. I think the rise of atheist sentiment is linked to the rise of disposable income in developed countries so possibly those families higher up in Westeros could afford to be atheist. When you don't have disposable income in the past or in undeveloped countries today people need their raison d'etre and that is almost always religion.

I hope this makes sense but to put it simply we work, form family units and raise children but we need something more. In developed countries we have more income than we need to survive which we spend on non essential goods like TVs, books, concert tickets etc. This fills our hole for something more, we're looking forward to the next book, or the lastest Console or new jacket. If you only have money to survive there's a hole in your life. Religion gives you something to live and often people from poorer and harsher environments will be more finatically religious.

If I had a chice of religions, well the trees are a bit freaky and have been from the start, the Red God are a bit too fanatical and too small in Westeros so I'd probably be on of the Seven. I'd like to light a candle at the Warrior but probably have to light a few at the Stranger.