I'm an atheist because I don't believe there are any sort of dieties or other spiritual beings in the universe. Agnostics are agnostics because they're not sure whether there are spiritual beings or not. At least that's my understanding of it.
Why not? For as long as we're not disrespectful towards the beliefs of one another I can't see why it's a poor topic.
Also, this applies to virtually everything. Hogwarts, Krypton, Jack Sparrow. One can argue that these exist from the perspective that it is impossible to disprove their existance, and so, if atheists should be agnostic instead of atheists (and btw, asking "why aren't atheists agonstic" is exactly the same as asking "why aren't religious people agnostic") because it is impossible to prove that atheism is correct, then every fictional thing anyone could think of can be listed as "possibly real".
This might not answer your question, but I found it clever nonetheless.
I was raised Catholic, though my beliefs started getting shaky at around the age of eleven, which was when I started questioning things. I was halfway between being atheist and theist for a while - I felt guilty that I was disowning God - but by thirteen years of age I was a strong atheist. This stage lasted a short amount of time until I realised that just because there isn't proof for gods existing doesn't mean they're not there. I started to call myself an agnostic (also when I got past that thirteen year old phase of being hostile towards religion).
As an agnostic, what I believed is that it is possible for gods to exist, just highly unlikely. I didn't like to be called an atheist because despite the incredibly high likelihood of there being no god, I felt it was foolish to deny the possibility. Earlier this year, I discovered that agnosticism is not a proper title.
Agnosticism has to do with knowledge - whether you assert knowledge of whether gods exist or not. Theism has to do with belief - whether you assert a belief in gods or not.
I call myself an agnostic atheist because that is what I am. I am atheist, but I do not claim to know about god. I'm almost apatheistic in my view on religion (that is, believing it is impossible to ever know whether gods exist or not and therefore not care at all) - but as long as religion brings injustice to the world (eg. banning same-sex marriage, euthanasia, Sharia law etc.) I can't not care about the issue.
An agnostic theist believes in gods or a god but doesn't claim to know whether they're true or not.
A gnostic theist believes in gods or a god and claims to know it's the truth (this is most religious people).
A gnostic atheist claims there's a 0% chance of gods existing and that it's common knowledge that there is no gods. I am a gnostic atheist in regards to the Christian/Jewish god, because all the contradictions in the Bible make it impossible for said god to exist. Overall I'm still an agnostic atheist, though, as there could be a similar god out there somewhere.
it should be common knowledge that there are no gods.*
Also should note that I've written that above post horribly :S
That's such an awesome graphic! Love it
Guess that makes me an Agnostic Deist then. haha My view: While I don't assert any knowledge one way or the other, I make the rationalization that the functioning and unified macro and micro universes, most notably the development of higher consciousness, reasoning, and imagination as a product of the same force (nature) that created the rocks and the stars, is indicative (in some inductive reasoning kind of way) of "god," if you will. With that undefined entity being little to nothing more than the thing that we, as conscious beings, gravitate towards and wish to become more like and perpetuate and understand, on some level, through personal growth (financial, social, educational, spiritual, etc). The complexity and the duality of the mind, the "goods" and "evils" of the world, 1 + 1 = 2, sensory perception, virtually anything that "is" - all part of the same scheme, starting somewhere, whether you believe in the Big Bang or Jesus Christ or Zeus and the Fates. The thing the gave us sand is the same thing that gave us the tides, is the same thing that made green look the way it does, is the same thing that gave us aversion to pain and attraction to beauty in a sunset, in a personality, in a song, in a complex mathematical equation... The connection between these things is what I call "god." And every voluntary action we take is loaded with intent to make our existence that much better - drink water because you're thirsty, scratch your nose because it itches, help an old lady 'cause it makes you feel good, steal her purse because it makes you feel good, punch yourself in the face because proving a point is more important to you than a pain-free face. Mistakes are made and no one's perfect, so we all don't know what we're doing, but we're in it together (insofar as we're all in it for ourselves)...
And if you're followin' me, you probably recognize that in this case the idea of a "god" is superfluous. Unnecessary. These things can necessarily exist with or without some "god." The fact that I grouped a bunch of things together and called it something doesn't mean it exists. And you'd be totally right. haha However, since some people say god is a nice dude in the sky, others say it's a buncha people, or the sun, or Charles Manson, or they say he's in the sky but isn't very nice, or he's a tall white dude, or "he" has no gender, or he causes natural disasters, or he doesn't do shit... the very notion of what or who god is or is supposed to be is subjective. It varies from person to person. It's not like a car or a dog, where you and I both generally think the same thing. It's total crap shoot. My point is you can call what I describe as "god," nature, or "w;lkasj" - my simple reason is that "it" is an active force, living through us - in a manner of speaking - each moment. I just happen to liken it to divinity, as defined as something simply "greater" - like the symbol behind the artefact - and not just a bunch of artifacts.
"my simple reasoning* is that "it" is an active force, living through us - in a manner of speaking - each moment. I just happen to liken it to divinity, as defined as something simply "greater" - like the symbol behind the artifact* -"
Sind, hahah, that's alright. I'm not too familiar with the concept of The Force, but I do know that Lucas was heavily influenced by the Greek classics. So, to think we'd be on the same page in some respect to "divinity," or whatever we wanna call it, is pretty cool haha :p
Ugilick, yah it kinda does. haha Brings me back to a deeply cynical criticism/discussion of religion I had with my cousin some time ago... Characterizing "god" simply as necessity, then you really can't say he's all "good." With respect to cancer and the Pantheist, if I have cancer, then it's necessarily the case that I have cancer. There's no time or place in the universe I could go to where this would be untrue. Today, tomorrow, 10 years ago, 500 years ago - it would always be the case that on May 5, 2012, I would be in existence and I would have cancer. And any notions of "what if" would be irrelevant (not considering the possibility of alternate timelines or universes). At its core, our logic, our science, our utmost basic understanding of the universe is developed by our examination of the world as it is (or as we perceive it), and our ideas of "what if this happened" are simply extensions of that basic understanding, considering how the things that did not happen would have otherwise affected present reality. So, along these lines, if we accept this idea of "god" being the "beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega," the all-powerful, ever present, unyielding force that created our reality, then I guess I really don't see where "all good" fits into that. The idea that this being would "desire good" and "condemn evil," qualities which he himself created, would appear to be something more along the lines of hopeful convenience...
We don't like the idea of bad things happening to "good" people, or "bad" people getting away with what we perceive to be evil acts - that much we do know. So, what could be more appealing to human beings than the idea that there existed some divine greater justice? Did "god" create us in his image, or did we create him or them in our own? As we've changed over time, so have our gods, religions, and overall sense of "morality." We characterize this glorious and just being as we do, it seems, because on some level we seek delude ourselves with the idea that association with this being somehow makes us better people. Makes us more righteous, as we present ourselves to others with a fake humility in a simple self-serving campaign to feel superior. When, in reality, we willfully ignore the fact that this type of god can only be accepted if we disregard our worldly observations and embrace this idea of "faith," which is both the only thing we choose to blindly accept in this world simply for the sake of blind accepting something else and the reason holy scripture is so important in religion. It's something you actually can point to and say "this here is why I believe what I believe. And the book doesn't lie, because it tells me it doesn't lie." With that one physical grounding in reality, those words on those pages somehow inspired by the creator of all existence, and with a lot of effort, you can hopefully keep yourself convinced long enough to be too ashamed to ever admit you've been dishonest with yourself all that time. Why? Probably because we fear our own mortality, and telling ourselves stories make us comfortable than dealing with our problems. Goes back to the feeling superiority - you're stronger, better, special... you don't have to face death, because you're going to live forever (in heaven). You're a "good" person and deserve as much. If we're speaking in terms of primal behaviors, then asserting - or flaunting - your spiritual constitution is tantamount to asserting your physical dominance in the wilderness.
However, we all make mistakes. We're prone to do "bad" things time and again... "but it can't be 'god's' fault," we say. "Most certainly can't be our fault, hah! We're good people, remember? Must be the doing of evil spirits. Oh, how unfortunate for those poor lost souls." Why take responsibility for your actions when you can blame it on something or someone else, whom everyone willingly accepts is causing all sorts of problems anyway? haha
Anyway, this is just my cynical run through of this one particular brand of "god" in religion. Forgive me if anything is really unclear, haha, couldn't sleep at all last night, so I just jumped online a few hours ago and.. here I am. haha I've got another theory about religion (Christianity specifically) that's much less harsh on the institution and speaks more to its followers... but I thought this one was more interesting :p
I never knew C.S. Lewis wrote philosophical papers, actually. haha Pretty cool, and I guess I shouldn't surprised, since he's a writer.
I'm really not looking to argue either, haha. When it comes to stuff like this, I just like to explore ideas. Although, criticism and counter points do help in moving a discussion along. :)
As for the quote - yes! haha The crux of the freewill/predetermination discussion lies in a distinction between simple necessity and conditional necessity. Simple: if I let go of a rock, it will necessarily fall to the floor. Conditional: if I witness a rock falling to the floor, it is necessarily falling to the floor. If we place god outside of time, merely witnessing our actions, it solves the problem... because him seeing me eat a sandwich tomorrow is no different from you seeing me eat a sandwich today. Just because you know it to be happening, and it can no other way, it doesn't somehow mean that I wasn't the sole agent in my decision to eat.
This places "god," however, in a passive role. You'd have great difficult making the case that god both plays an active role in the universe, but at the same time doesn't interfere with our decisions. Because if he exists outside of time, then any conditions or situations he establishes for your life - to test your or to see how you exercise your will or for whatever reason - had always necessarily existed, such that the world around you had been set in motion from the "beginning" to lead you to this particular situation. Otherwise, you'd have to make a case for either 1) he only does things that affect you through random and isolated events, separate from others and the working world around you or 2) that he works by manipulating situations and other people's lives just because he wants to test you.
With 1, you could say he sends his angels, etc. Solves the problem, but if you apply occham's razor - the argument that makes the fewest assumptions is best - you find that there's no better reason to accept that answer than the one that says god knew what he was doing when he created the world and didn't have to add or change anything while you and I watch it unfold. In which case, we're left with a "presently" passive god - we keep our will, he keeps his foreknowledge, and any such influence he has on present life was established at creation.
With 2, he has a great deal of influence, but free will is compromised. If he manipulates either one of us for the sake of creating a situation for the other, then one of us loses our free will. That interaction with the hand of god would have to be a part of his plan for both of us, allowing you and me our freedom. But if no one is manipulated, unless it's some massive event that affects many people (like a tsunami), then it brings us back to argument 1...
Ugh.. I'm sure I'm talking in circles now. haha But it seems to me that the problem is not whether god has influence, but whether he actually pays so much attention to our individual lives, responding to our prayers and deeds, punishing and rewarding accordingly. Going back to what I said about our human desire for justice, I'm sure we'd love to believe that he's watching and reacting, but there doesn't seem to be a reason to. I wanna say it plays into the whole cynicism of us trying to feel connected. "He's watching me. He talks to me. He has a plan for me," even if it involves the rationale behind argument 2 (manipulation of others) ... at least, that's what I gather from this.
I'm jumping back and forth between stuff I needa get done, haha, and I'm sure there are holes in here. But yah, I'll come back to the thread later today. haha
I don't really see a problem with it as long as you don't force them to go or look down on them if they become atheist or agnostic. My Faith has probably saved my life on multiple occasions to be honest. When I was in a state of depression, if it wasn't for my fear of going to Hell I probably would have killed myself.
I bet it's glad you typed the infamous 7,000 word post on your computer huh?
I don't know what any of that means but it sounds interesting.
Cov, far be it from me to tell you how to raise your future kids. haha Couldn't really tell you whether or not it's wise either, but you do what you think is best as a parent. I mean, honestly, once they enter school and start spending most of their day with children their own age, they're pretty much going to be out of your hands. Of course, you'll still be a main influence, but you won't be the only one. As far as taking them to church "to make sure they are imbued" with anything you believe is important, you can't really expect too much, ya know?
My parents took me to church pretty much every single week of my life, haha, for the most part, that is. Sure, I went and listened and did the whole thing. I even really believed it at a point - but not because it "made sense" to me, or because I "connected" in any way, but because I grew up being told that, and I believed it. I eventually came to "feel the holy spirit," as it were, right before the time I reached jr. high, because I'd been tricked (through fear) into believing I was fuckin' up, simply by listening to music I liked, watching shows and anime I liked, and mundane things of that nature. I was also a pretty depressed kid, haha, so when I flat out stopped doing those things and placed a massive focus on church and religion, it was easy for me to accept it when people - in a very cultish fashion, I might add - told me that it was God that was helping me, guiding me, etc etc. I faintly recall something along the lines of people being too weak to fight the devil and temptation on their own (again, they likened this to anything that doesn't bring you closer to God), and that the simple fact that I'd changed was evidence of his presence.
It didn't take more than a year or so before I started to feel progressively more distant from it, because it seemed like all God (or rather, the church) wanted me to do with my life was not to live it. Parents and the people "supporting" me, as I soon realised, didn't know a damn thing about me. haha They didn't know why I liked the things I liked, and it seemed all they ever did was passive agressively judge me and try to guilt me. By around the second year, I totally stopped giving a fuck about how they saw me, because it turns out they only support you if you do what pleases them. And although I came out of it with experience in the long term, I was a much worse person because of it in the short term.
Haha, then I matured a little bit, and now it's just dust in the wind. My parents fought me along the way to get me to go to church, but they're not totally beyond reason. haha After countless discussions about what I'm willing to let myself believe, they finally stopped trying to get me to go... which I'm glad they did, haha, because after these conversations they seemed like they'd all but lost their own faith once or twice. They're kinda old, and I'd feel pretty guilty if I thought I'd somehow taken that away from 'em, even if I don't believe it myself. It's not like they were lying to me, and I don't blame them for doing what they truly believed was best - but in the end we all grow up, and we're going to do what makes sense to us. Same will happen with our kids after we raise and teach them what we think is best, and the same will happen to theirs.
Seventh Day Adventist. Basically the same as most other denominations, except they go to church on Saturday, don't eat pork or shell fish, or celebrate Christmas or Easter... I'm sure there are other differences, but I couldn't tell ya off the top of my head.
So true, haha, it's funny. They have all these discussions on how to get young people to come to church and keep them there, but it's often those very people who love only to judge and criticize and correct others' thoughts and behavior. It's clearly a counter productive method, and yet they can't seem to figure out the problem. haha Not all, of course, but that's most of the church staff (or whatever they're called) at my old place in a nutshell.
I think it's all pretty stupid for the most part. No one's looking into your bank account or making sure you "put your money in the basket," as it were. But they do try to guilt you to pay, just like they try to guilt you to do everything else. It's just one more tool used to get you more invested in the church - but you don't "have" to do it anymore than you "have" to do any other ridiculous thing they want you to do.
Yah, I agree. But people don't go to church because they want to be independent and live by their own code and make their own decisions. You know what you're getting - you surrender to "greater" than yourself, you're limiting the amount of things you do for the sake of pleasing that greater thing, you follow what it says in some book, etc etc. It just so happens that not everyone seems to take it so seriously, haha. But at the end of the day, no one's forcing anyone, but they are pretty much telling you "Hey! I'm not judging, but.. you know... I'm not the one you should be worried about" and that goes for everything they want you to follow.
Definitely. There are more lax places out there, but there's a difference between less pressure and no pressure. As far as organized religion goes, you're not going to find "no pressure," or no avocation or expectation of adherence to scripture. But yah, you can certainly preach the stuff, talk about your own life and experience, bring other people to give testimony and whatnot, give advice on matters and discuss the most ethical or moral way about doing things (without necessarily guilting or pressuring someone to behave a particular way). But I think that takes a certain type of person, and not so much a certain type of church.
The burden of proof lies on those claiming something exists. While religious people can simply say "you can't disprove it", the fact that they can't prove it themselves is proof itself that they're basing their belief on faith and not logic or proof. Though it's funny to note that many religious folk believe that the burden of proof lies on those who do not believe in their religion, to prove it wrong.
Then again I never understood how people can even argue if a religion is real or not. The vast majority of Gods and religions can easily be disproven by their own scriptures, it's just the idea of a God or an afterlife themselves that, by their very nature, can't be disproven or proven.
Though I don't see a point in telling any religious person this. I know plenty of nice religious people and I don't feel like bashing their beliefs just for the sake of bashing them. A belief is a belief and not a fact, so I feel that I really have no business telling them what they can and can not believe in provided they aren't bashing me for my lifestyle and aren't being violent/rude due to their beliefs.
My position is Agnostic Atheist.
[This was a reply to another post in another thread but I felt it would be more in place here, which is why the beginning feels like a response to something else]
Can't we just FUCKING GET ALONG?! JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE?!
Agreed!
Dear DV,
;9 hahah This guy ^^^
But seriously, well put, señor. haha Our religious views evolve all the time, and we're constantly switching between a "vengeful" god and a "merciful" god and a "just" god... which is a good thing, 'cuz it means we're not sticking to principles like pro-slavery and misogyny based capital punishment, etc. And those who do, the fundamentalists, are fucking crazy. haha With all due respect, of course :p
Yah know, I really don't like the false notion many people have that in order to be moral, one must be religious. But that's something else entirely. There's the idea that morals are based on religion, which I think is also pretty wacky, but at least I can understand why one might think that.
Yah, there's lots of stuff about killing adulterous women and homosexuals. There's a verse about the streets running red with the blood of gay people, but I'm admittedly far lazier than Bo in finding the specific verses. haha
I don't know which verses you are thinking of in regards to killing adulturous women, but the story in John chapter 8 comes to mind. People were trying to stone a woman found in adultury, and Jesus forgives the woman, then challenges the stone throwers "If any is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone". None of them did.
Context, Bo, context. You're taking one verse out of context, and missing the point of the passage
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.
18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
This isn't the Bible condoning slavery, merely accepting that it exists in the world of that day, and outlining how a slave should go about living a Godly life. The passage as a whole is about submitting to authority, and it uses slaves as one instance of that.
God did disaprove of Solomon's many wives and his concubines. Because of them, Solomon fell away from God to worship the Gods of his wives
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Even though I thoroughly hate this website since it's only goal is to bash religion, I thought of it as a good source.
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
