Atheists, does it irk you that Christians are so sure of their beliefs? (priest, catholic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not necessarily. Choices are made as a result of a decision-making process. The choice to delay the process is not a choice that is relevant to the issue at hand.
But you have made the choice not to accept the claim.
Delaying the process is no different, in this context, to saying the status quo is the better option (non-belief) for now but you're keeping an open mind.
In other words....if the claim were compelling you'd have re-examined your status quo (non-belief). That is absolutely a choice.
Quote:
The term agnostic is not applicable to those things. Agnosticism only applies to claims/beliefs concerning god/universal origin.
That's an oxymoron
A theist most certainly can believe in a deity while acknowledging the inability to falsify (thereby have justified true belief of) the deity. I don't personally think it is tenable but it is not rationally impossible. It describes most liberal theists.
You can certainly choose to apply special meaning to any word you wish, but saying you are agnostic and then opting to not live your life as if any theism, deism, pantheism, et al claims you've heard are true....is behaving as an atheist. As if the god-claim in question doesn't exist. And if there were no such god-claims....you'd have no reason to proclaim yourself agnostic....just like an atheist.
That is your right to dissociate yourself....but it is a position of desire rather than cooperative communication of language, in my view. Your beliefs are are (as I have discerned from your posts) no different than my own. You have not been convinced of a deity therefore you live as if there is not.
Quote:
I've met plenty of gnostic atheists. While the term itself isn't contradictory, it sheds light on some strong hypocrisy. And as I said before, the term 'agnostic theist' implies the existence of black whiteness, wet dryness, warm coldness, etc. It is poetic sure, but sense it does not make.
See above. Again I would suggest that you consider that knowledge and belief are not the same thing but you are acting as an agent of your beliefs, even when they are about concepts which you don't claim knowledge of.
Not accepting a claim is different from rejecting a claim. And no, re-examination of claims never occurs because all claims are pre-dismissed as unverifiable. I don't make new choices for every claim I encounter, nor does the concept of compulsion come into it.
The term agnostic is pretty specific in what it means. To be an agnostic is actually to take 2 positions: 1) god/universal origin is unknowable 2) refuse commitment/faith in any claim. These positions are taken not because science fails, empirical evidence is lacking, or because the agnostic is allergic to faith. These positions are taken because all positions must be justified to oneself to maintain authenticity. To be an agnostic doesn't really allow for overlap into other positions on the subject, as it seems some people would like to suggest.
Knowledge and belief are almost the same thing. One is dollars, the other is credit/debt. Both are based on a fiat system, a confidence system. The human brain is unreliable, so actual knowledge outside of the human mind can never be considered 'real' knowledge. Outside of the human brain, dollars and debt are equally worthless. Well, I guess if you get down to it, nothing has value outside of the human brain.
You're right, I'm completely, purely, agnostic. I probably live the same as an atheist, but that doesn't mean that I am one. Living a certain way similar to some other category doesn't mean you're a member of it unless its definition is based on lifestyle. There are plenty of 'religious' people out there that live just like I do, but we can't call them atheists now can we?
No worse than Atheists being so sure that there isn't a God. But, at least Christians being so sure of their beliefs shows commitment. Nothing sexier than a man who is confident in his choices and can commit to them without doubt.
Actually, a man who deeply believes in big daddy in the sky and refuses to listen to alternate points of view is about as sexy as a pile of dirty laundry, IMO. Fortunately, unlike the dirty laundry, I feel no compunction at all to do anything about it.
But then I'm sure you wouldn't be attracted to a woman like me either, so that works out quite well.
Not accepting a claim is different from rejecting a claim. And no, re-examination of claims never occurs because all claims are pre-dismissed as unverifiable. I don't make new choices for every claim I encounter, nor does the concept of compulsion come into it.
The term agnostic is pretty specific in what it means. To be an agnostic is actually to take 2 positions: 1) god/universal origin is unknowable 2) refuse commitment/faith in any claim. These positions are taken not because science fails, empirical evidence is lacking, or because the agnostic is allergic to faith. These positions are taken because all positions must be justified to oneself to maintain authenticity. To be an agnostic doesn't really allow for overlap into other positions on the subject, as it seems some people would like to suggest.
Knowledge and belief are almost the same thing. One is dollars, the other is credit/debt. Both are based on a fiat system, a confidence system. The human brain is unreliable, so actual knowledge outside of the human mind can never be considered 'real' knowledge. Outside of the human brain, dollars and debt are equally worthless. Well, I guess if you get down to it, nothing has value outside of the human brain.
You're right, I'm completely, purely, agnostic. I probably live the same as an atheist, but that doesn't mean that I am one. Living a certain way similar to some other category doesn't mean you're a member of it unless its definition is based on lifestyle. There are plenty of 'religious' people out there that live just like I do, but we can't call them atheists now can we?
Sure you make choices. You either accept new concepts and integrate them, or you dismiss them from acceptance. Just like you are doing here. You are not compelled to accept the words for what they actually mean, in my view.
The question of walks like a duck is pertinent to the behaviors of the duck...not the fact that it is a bird of some sort. You presumably don't go to church, you don't profess a love for a savior, and you don't "believe" the bible is anything more than a book written by men who most likely had no knowledge of a deity. If you did those things, you'd be a theist even if you didn't want to call yourself a theist.
Again I'd suggest you have belief positions, or lack thereof, on a wide gamut of topics which you don't claim knowledge about. The idea that they are the same is an untenable and ultimately indefensible position in my view. To not acknowledge that you have a belief position on the existence of a god, is dishonest or hubris.
No worse than Atheists being so sure that there isn't a God. But, at least Christians being so sure of their beliefs shows commitment. Nothing sexier than a man who is confident in his choices and can commit to them without doubt.
I almost wonder if this post is supposed to be sarcasm?! ...are you honestly painting potential and current terrorists' as "sexy?"
I don't think you can get more commitment to a belief than strapping a bomb to your chest, and that whole "commit without doubt" isn't always (or maybe even "often" depending on how you utilize it) a virtue.
There reason there are so many different christian denominations is because they could not come to a collective doctrinal agreement, and became more divided as the centuries rolled on. It's kind of funny that we categorize non-belief, and almost try and create "doctrines" for that, too. Not in eye-rolly kind way, but more like amusement with how humans instinctively establish "tribes".
FWIW, I just call myself a heathen. Mainly because the degree of atheism or agnosticism is subject to change, depending on my mood. And my academic interest in germanic, slavic, and celtic paganism further blurs those lines at times.
There reason there are so many different christian denominations is because they could not come to a collective doctrinal agreement, and became more divided as the centuries rolled on.
I disagree. The reason that there are religions (and then sub-categories of each) is because of mankind's desire for possession of the truth. Basically, wherever there is man, there is a desire for truth that leads to a 'truth' based on what is desired to be true.
Now, what is desired to be true depends on society. Every community is different. The reason there is a necessity for varying versions of religions is because each community focuses, reinterprets, or simply invents, religious doctrine that supports their desires. It isn't about doctrinal agreement, it's about an ideology that appeals most effectively to the mob at hand. Every change in religion, and every birth of a new one, is reflective of this. If a new religion or new doctrinal change wasn't reflective of the mob, it would have died off.
Religions exist almost as an entity that lives through the (blindly foolish) people that take part in them. They play by the same rules as other organisms, 'survival of the fittest'. Each ecosystem is different. And humans, with their desires, are the source of 'supernatural selection' so-to-speak.
I disagree. The reason that there are religions (and then sub-categories of each) is because of mankind's desire for possession of the truth. Basically, wherever there is man, there is a desire for truth that leads to a 'truth' based on what is desired to be true.
Now, what is desired to be true depends on society. Every community is different. The reason there is a necessity for varying versions of religions is because each community focuses, reinterprets, or simply invents, religious doctrine that supports their desires. It isn't about doctrinal agreement, it's about an ideology that appeals most effectively to the mob at hand. Every change in religion, and every birth of a new one, is reflective of this. If a new religion or new doctrinal change wasn't reflective of the mob, it would have died off.
Religions exist almost as an entity that lives through the (blindly foolish) people that take part in them. They play by the same rules as other organisms, 'survival of the fittest'. Each ecosystem is different. And humans, with their desires, are the source of 'supernatural selection' so-to-speak.
Well yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying, albeit with brevity. All the way back to the East-West Schism, the church progressively broke into denominations when one group decided that their take on scripture is truthier than the others, to the point where they can't even worship under the same roof. It continues today, where a small group up and decides to the leave their church over some hot button issue (lady deacons! music with a backbeat! speaking in tongues!) and start their own dang church in a strip mall or someone's living room.
There reason there are so many different christian denominations is because they could not come to a collective doctrinal agreement, and became more divided as the centuries rolled on. It's kind of funny that we categorize non-belief, and almost try and create "doctrines" for that, too. Not in eye-rolly kind way, but more like amusement with how humans instinctively establish "tribes".
FWIW, I just call myself a heathen. Mainly because the degree of atheism or agnosticism is subject to change, depending on my mood. And my academic interest in germanic, slavic, and celtic paganism further blurs those lines at times.
actually you are categorized by interactions not labels. when a person interacts with religion in such a way that the non belief is treated as "better" or "the only logical choice" as compared to another "belief set" that non belief can look like a religion. When those interaction become emotionally based it is a religion. when they treat a non belief like a non belief in that we don't interact with religion in many ways, say maybe for separation of church and state, that's what it is, a non belief. thus those two simple interactions forms sects.
but there are many people where tags are all they need. wear the spirit wear and you in. I call them the 100's.
Actually, a man who deeply believes in big daddy in the sky and refuses to listen to alternate points of view is about as sexy as a pile of dirty laundry, IMO. Fortunately, unlike the dirty laundry, I feel no compunction at all to do anything about it.
But then I'm sure you wouldn't be attracted to a woman like me either, so that works out quite well.
Haha well said
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
