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.
I have read many comments posted by people who claim they are religious, and though I am an atheist, I often better understand why people claim to be religious than I do why people claim to be agnostic.
I'm curious to read the best concise explanation anyone has for being any of the three here (religious, agnostic or atheist), and in particular I am curious why you might claim to be agnostic rather than atheist or vice versa.
PS: I'm not trying to start a "war" with anyone here...
I claim to be religious because this is my best estimation of ultimate Truth after a long and diligent quest. I am both (1) religious in a general sense and (2) religious in a more specific Christian sense. I have concluded that Christianity, at least as a template, has the greatest explanatory power. In my estimation, it best accords with the evidence and with my own experiences and observations of myself and the world in which I live. I accept the inevitable uncertainty and the possibility that I could be seriously in error, but my level of conviction is sufficient that I choose to live as though my beliefs were True.
If my long and diligent quest and left me unable to cross the threshold into religious belief, I'd be an agnostic. Instead of merely accepting the inevitable uncertainty and possibility I could be in error, as I now do, I'd be saying the level of uncertainty was too great for me to arrive at any firm convictions.
If my quest had led me to a conviction about atheism, then I'd live according to that conviction while accepting the uncertainty and possibility of error.
So I believe it all boils down to the level of conviction. The legitimacy of those convictions depends on how diligent, thorough and wide-ranging one's quest for Truth has been.
I claim to be religious because this is my best estimation of ultimate Truth after a long and diligent quest. I am both (1) religious in a general sense and (2) religious in a more specific Christian sense. I have concluded that Christianity, at least as a template, has the greatest explanatory power. In my estimation, it best accords with the evidence and with my own experiences and observations of myself and the world in which I live. I accept the inevitable uncertainty and the possibility that I could be seriously in error, but my level of conviction is sufficient that I choose to live as though my beliefs were True.
If my long and diligent quest and left me unable to cross the threshold into religious belief, I'd be an agnostic. Instead of merely accepting the inevitable uncertainty and possibility I could be in error, as I now do, I'd be saying the level of uncertainty was too great for me to arrive at any firm convictions.
If my quest had led me to a conviction about atheism, then I'd live according to that conviction while accepting the uncertainty and possibility of error.
So I believe it all boils down to the level of conviction. The legitimacy of those convictions depends on how diligent, thorough and wide-ranging one's quest for Truth has been.
I claim to be religious because this is my best estimation of ultimate Truth after a long and diligent quest. I am both (1) religious in a general sense and (2) religious in a more specific Christian sense. I have concluded that Christianity, at least as a template, has the greatest explanatory power. In my estimation, it best accords with the evidence and with my own experiences and observations of myself and the world in which I live. I accept the inevitable uncertainty and the possibility that I could be seriously in error, but my level of conviction is sufficient that I choose to live as though my beliefs were True.
If my long and diligent quest and left me unable to cross the threshold into religious belief, I'd be an agnostic. Instead of merely accepting the inevitable uncertainty and possibility I could be in error, as I now do, I'd be saying the level of uncertainty was too great for me to arrive at any firm convictions.
If my quest had led me to a conviction about atheism, then I'd live according to that conviction while accepting the uncertainty and possibility of error.
So I believe it all boils down to the level of conviction. The legitimacy of those convictions depends on how diligent, thorough and wide-ranging one's quest for Truth has been.
I claim to be religious because this is my best estimation of ultimate Truth after a long and diligent quest. I am both (1) religious in a general sense and (2) religious in a more specific Christian sense. I have concluded that Christianity, at least as a template, has the greatest explanatory power. In my estimation, it best accords with the evidence and with my own experiences and observations of myself and the world in which I live. I accept the inevitable uncertainty and the possibility that I could be seriously in error, but my level of conviction is sufficient that I choose to live as though my beliefs were True.
If my long and diligent quest and left me unable to cross the threshold into religious belief, I'd be an agnostic. Instead of merely accepting the inevitable uncertainty and possibility I could be in error, as I now do, I'd be saying the level of uncertainty was too great for me to arrive at any firm convictions.
If my quest had led me to a conviction about atheism, then I'd live according to that conviction while accepting the uncertainty and possibility of error.
So I believe it all boils down to the level of conviction. The legitimacy of those convictions depends on how diligent, thorough and wide-ranging one's quest for Truth has been.
I have to believe given all your time and effort devoted to establishing what is "ultimate truth," you have come to realize how pointless it can be to compare the particulars of one religion over another to prove which is ultimately more about the truth. I have anyway, so more often these days after a fair bit of experience myself, I am more inclined to ask you how you explain so many (billions) of people who don't believe the ultimate truth is what you believe it to be.
How do you explain this?
Given what it takes to be a rabbi, for example? An iman? A brilliant scientist? My wife's uncle who is a deacon with the Mormon church? An atheist who has also put in similar serious time and effort? Are they all not as smart as you? Haven't devoted sufficient time like you have? Lack the conviction you do? Please help me understand your beliefs about this, with respect to all who disagree with you. People we might both consider worthy with respect to their efforts and commitments, no less than yours.
I am not sure I understand the meaning but hey, everyone deserves some light.
I'm guessing that was a reference to the proverbial light we (supposedly, reportedly) see as we leave this world and "cross over" to the glorious afterlife. And whether we should be encouraging someone who might be approaching the age to take that last step. I'm also guessing L8's tongue was planted somewhere in their cheek.
I have to believe given all your time and effort devoted to establishing what is "ultimate truth," you have come to realize how pointless it can be to compare the particulars of one religion over another to prove which is ultimately more about the truth. I have anyway, so more often these days after a fair bit of experience myself, I am more inclined to ask you how you explain so many (billions) of people who don't believe the ultimate truth is what you believe it to be.
How do you explain this?
Given what it takes to be a rabbi, for example? An iman? A brilliant scientist? My wife's uncle who is a deacon with the Mormon church? An atheist who has also put in similar serious time and effort? Are they all not as smart as you? Haven't devoted sufficient time like you have? Lack the conviction you do? Please help me understand your beliefs about this, with respect to all who disagree with you. People we might both consider worthy with respect to their efforts and commitments, no less than yours.
For starters, in my experience the vast majority of people - including a large percentage of pastors, rabbis and their ilk - aren't really concerned about Truth. They are indoctrinated into a belief system in their youth by parents or other authority figures or they later gravitate to one on the basis of convenience, cultural conditioning, perceived social, economic or political benefits, or other factors having nothing to do with Truth. They are looking for a congenial landing spot, not Truth. A miniscule percentage of people engage in the sort of quest I'm talking about, where Truth is a serious lifelong goal.
To pick on my fellow Christians, how many members of the typical denomination have any real idea of what they are supposed to believe and why or how it differs from what other denominations believe - let alone what other religions and philosophies teach?
But many people have indeed engaged in serious quests spanning many years and many avenues of inquiry and have arrived at convictions different from mine. In some cases there has been a startling experience or flash of insight that is sufficient in itself to give a depth of conviction different from mine. I can't explain this any more than I can explain why some people prefer apples to oranges and others prefer rhubarb. It doesn't trouble me that others have different notions of Truth. I'll listen to what they believe and why, and factor it into my own thinking if that seems appropriate, but ultimately I can only believe in my own convictions as to what is True.
As I've explained previously, my own thinking progressed in stages from questioning whether the prevailing naturalistic paradigm provides a plausible explanation of reality (no), to the nature of consciousness and whether it plausibly survives physical death (yes), to whether we inhabit an uncreated or created reality (created), to whether an atheistic or theistic explanation seems to be most consistent with the evidence (theistic), to which theistic explanation makes the most sense (in broad terms, Christianity). There is uncertainty and the possibility of error at every stage, which is why I've done my best to reach a strong level of conviction at each stage and to remain flexible and open to new evidence and thinking. I'm engaged in a study right now as to whether, even assuming the truth of the Christian paradigm, something like idealism or panpsychism may best explain the nature of God's creation.
The avenues of inquiry I've pursued and bodies of evidence I've considered are readily available to anyone. Assuming someone is equally diligent, if she arrives at different convictions it will be because she simply assesses the evidence and arguments differently. Nothing I can do about that; no reason it should trouble me. Regarding the plausibility of the naturalistic paradigm and the possible survival of consciousness (first two stages), I've had numerous paranormal experiences bearing on both questions; not everyone has had these. I try to assess them as rationally and self-critically as I can and in the context of what other sane and credible people have reported.
At the final two stages - deism vs. theism and which version of theism - the quest becomes highly personal. My own experiences - again, trying to assess them as rationally and self-critically as I can - have been of a protective and guiding personality at work throughout my life, in some cases in ways I can only explain as miraculous. This weighs against deism and in favor of theism. When it comes to deciding which version of theism, I find that Christianity is most consistent with my experiences and observations of myself, of others and of the world in which we live. I didn't find it particularly difficult to compare the major alternatives - they really provide very different answers, and I find that the Christian template has the greatest explanatory power.
If someone thinks that by a quest I mean something like simply comparing atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other belief systems and deciding which one is most likely to be True, that's very mistaken. To a very large degree, that comparison occurs at the end of a long and diligent quest. The final stage coalesces the convictions reached at the previous stages into a cohesive belief system in which the individual can genuinely believe and not merely pretend to believe or accept on the authority of someone else.
Do I think the others are wrong? Well, sure - I can only trust my own convictions. But while thinking they are wrong, I also accept and acknowledge that I or both of us could be wrong. I think that those who hold to naturalistic atheism are very wrong. I think Scientologists are very wrong. I think Hindus are very wrong. I think others are less wrong. Within Christianity itself, I think some believers are very wrong, others less so. None of this troubles me to the extent that I have the feeling you think it should. I can only reach and hold my own convictions and do my best to make sure those convictions are and remain well-founded.
I'm guessing that was a reference to the proverbial light we (supposedly, reportedly) see as we leave this world and "cross over" to the glorious afterlife. And whether we should be encouraging someone who might be approaching the age to take that last step. I'm also guessing L8's tongue was planted somewhere in their cheek.
The way atheists zero in on religious connotation where none was intended is uncanny. A little sad even.
The way atheists zero in on religious connotation where none was intended is uncanny. A little sad even.
I wasn't aware that the "light at the end of tunnel" people report after near-death experiences necessarily had a religious connotation (though some may ascribe it). Personally, I think it likely has more to do with the physiologic effects of agonal loss of blood flow to brain and retina.
But don't be sad. I'm willing to bet it was a simple joke.
I wasn't aware that the "light at the end of tunnel" people report after near-death experiences necessarily had a religious connotation (though some may ascribe it). Personally, I think it likely has more to do with the physiologic effects of agonal loss of blood flow to brain and retina.
But don't be sad. I'm willing to bet it was a simple joke.
Who knew that was an obscure reference? Mystic got it so all good.
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.
Nothing to argue with here!
