Stuck Between Agnosticism and Christianity

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought I cleared that up, that while atheism is not a religion "per se," it does require a certain amount of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
What faith is required to not have a belief in god?

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism, as used in common vernacular as opposed to the strict definition, uses supportive arguments that require a certain degree of faith in something.

In strict definition, atheism requires no faith. The "vocal atheists," as individuals, however, always show faith in something by their choice of supporting arguments.

A common belief held by atheists who use science, for instance, is that scienctific consensus can't be the result of biased, errant, or falliable science that created increasing levels of groupthink with weaknesses covered by justifications which are merely the result of confirmation bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science isn't for or against god. Actually god's existence is (as of yet anyway) a very uninteresting scientific question.

Any anyone who believes science can't be fallible is per definition not believing in science, because common scientific method is about falsifying and constantly developing new and improved theories. Absolutes are largely uninteresting. A point which I see seems to flyby completely unnoticed by theists.

It is also this method of seeing the world which the largest criticism against theism - fluidity of belief vs rigidity of belief - what we know will change.

Also you are indirectly proposing an = sign between atheism and science, which is itself interesting and reveals maybe a fairly big bias on your part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thre reason that I use science in the example is that science gets used by atheists in apoletics as if it were an infalliable piece of truth. Believing this requires a certain degree of faith.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought I cleared that up, that while atheism is not a religion "per se," it does require a certain amount of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
What faith is required to not have a belief in god?

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism, as used in common vernacular as opposed to the strict definition, uses supportive arguments that require a certain degree of faith in something.

In strict definition, atheism requires no faith. The "vocal atheists," as individuals, however, always show faith in something by their choice of supporting arguments.

A common belief held by atheists who use science, for instance, is that scienctific consensus can't be the result of biased, errant, or falliable science that created increasing levels of groupthink with weaknesses covered by justifications which are merely the result of confirmation bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science isn't for or against god. Actually god's existence is (as of yet anyway) a very uninteresting scientific question.

Any anyone who believes science can't be fallible is per definition not believing in science, because common scientific method is about falsifying and constantly developing new and improved theories. Absolutes are largely uninteresting. A point which I see seems to flyby completely unnoticed by theists.

It is also this method of seeing the world which the largest criticism against theism - fluidity of belief vs rigidity of belief - what we know will change.

Also you are indirectly proposing an = sign between atheism and science, which is itself interesting and reveals maybe a fairly big bias on your part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thre reason that I use science in the example is that science gets used by atheists in apoletics as if it were an infalliable piece of truth. Believing this requires a certain degree of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, people use science in some bad ways, just like people use christianity in many bad ways. I'm fairly certain the degree of confirmation bias and groupthink is exceedingly much higher amongst theists than non-theists in terms of percents.

How else would for example you as a christian explain all the other religions and the numbers of their believers in the world?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science isn't for or against god. Actually god's existence is (as of yet anyway) a very uninteresting scientific question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it is not even a scientific question. There are too many important issues for science to have time to concern itself with trivial questions about god or the easter bunny!

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed in the sense that it isn't a scientific question. I don't think it is trivial though, but it isn't really answerable/falsifiable in any good way so trying to answer it with science is largely useless.

We can certainly falsify most religious works and legends, but a hypothesis of some 'god-thing' controlling the universe isn't very interesting yet.

[fees]

agnosticism donk

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wikipedia tells us that "hell" is described by all these religions:

2 Religious literature & views
2.1 Bahá'í Faith
2.2 Buddhism
2.3 Chinese religions
2.4 Christianity
2.5 Deism
2.6 Greek Mythology
2.7 Hinduism
2.8 Islam
2.9 Japanese religions
2.10 Judaism
2.11 Maya faith
2.12 Norse Mythology
2.13 Taoism
2.14 Unification Church
2.15 Zoroastrianism

So even if you could force yourself to believe in this Jesus character, you'd still be 14:1 against avoiding hell, on the unlikely (silly!) assumption that these are the only options.


[/ QUOTE ]

vnh sir! And to think of all the sects within them too. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

As I already pointed out, most of the religions on this list don't subscribe to a notion of hell that we would be at all familiar with. Most of them describe an afterlife of some sort however.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is true, but wouldn't you agree that with the potential of so many afterlifes that just focusing on one possibility might not be that productive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. I was just trying to point out that believing in Christianity doesn't put you at risk for alternative forms of hell because there aren't really many alternative hells. So if you are the most scared of the Christian hell, perhaps it would make sense to bet on Christianity because the consequences aren't as bad if you got it wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

But that seems to me that one would just pick the belief that resorts to the most scare tactics as opposed to a belief that may focus on more positive things. It doesn't seem very healthy for one's mental health.

[ QUOTE ]
Then again, I think it's pretty silly to live your life in fear of a place that we have no evidence for other than ancient texts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think so too. But I suppose scare tactics can prevent people from doing bad things. It's like telling children that Santa will leave a lump of coal if they are bad. Not saying that's a good thing but that's how things often work. Then of course, we may be annoyed at people who do not murder or steal simply because the religion says its bad. (That is, they have no explanation on why something is bad besides the fact that the belief had such a prohibition) That might leads to the belief that atheists have no reason to not murder and steal. Of course, this isn't just a religion thing. I've heard enough of "Drugs are bad because they are illegal" that I just smile and say nothing.

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, the definition of christianity doesn't change regardless if you are in America, Australia, or Africa....it's still the same Bunny.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is the same and it includes interpretation. The interpretation of the bible does vary dramatically based on geography.

[ QUOTE ]
We have been down this road before. You know my thoughts on this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
No I dont. I'd be curious if you would answer yes or no to the question "Do you believe God is going to lovingly torture me forever because I have misunderstood the bible?"

[ QUOTE ]
I quoted you alot of scripture relating to hell & how people will be going there someday the last time this came up. As usual, you shrugged me off with a "nah, I like my theory better" attitude.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of both my position and attitude. I would like to know the truth - I dont care whose theory it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bunny, do you not remember the huge thread a few months ago (may have been the one about the Exodus, not sure) where I told you repeatedly that hell is real & gave you the passages to back it up??? I certainly do. But, to humor you, yes I certainly do believe you (or anyone else) will go to hell if you do not accept Jesus Christ as lord & savior. For the record, misunderstanding the Bible & not believing the Bible are two totally different things.

Also, I know several Christians from Australia & your 'interpretation varies based on geography' baloney, is well...just that...baloney. So that excuse doesn't hold water with me.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought I cleared that up, that while atheism is not a religion "per se," it does require a certain amount of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
What faith is required to not have a belief in god?

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism, as used in common vernacular as opposed to the strict definition, uses supportive arguments that require a certain degree of faith in something.

In strict definition, atheism requires no faith. The "vocal atheists," as individuals, however, always show faith in something by their choice of supporting arguments.

A common belief held by atheists who use science, for instance, is that scienctific consensus can't be the result of biased, errant, or falliable science that created increasing levels of groupthink with weaknesses covered by justifications which are merely the result of confirmation bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science isn't for or against god. Actually god's existence is (as of yet anyway) a very uninteresting scientific question.

Any anyone who believes science can't be fallible is per definition not believing in science, because common scientific method is about falsifying and constantly developing new and improved theories. Absolutes are largely uninteresting. A point which I see seems to flyby completely unnoticed by theists.

It is also this method of seeing the world which the largest criticism against theism - fluidity of belief vs rigidity of belief - what we know will change.

Also you are indirectly proposing an = sign between atheism and science, which is itself interesting and reveals maybe a fairly big bias on your part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thre reason that I use science in the example is that science gets used by atheists in apoletics as if it were an infalliable piece of truth. Believing this requires a certain degree of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, people use science in some bad ways, just like people use christianity in many bad ways. I'm fairly certain the degree of confirmation bias and groupthink is exceedingly much higher amongst theists than non-theists in terms of percents.

How else would for example you as a christian explain all the other religions and the numbers of their believers in the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just making a point. The liklihood of groupthink between theists and nontheists is a separtate issue. I would say, however, that groupthink occurs in all types of nontheistic realms fairly regularly. Politics is but one hideous example.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Growing up Catholic, I was taught where where we go after we die (and for some reason, purgatory was neglected to be mentioned as an option). On top of this, I was taught how to behave so you could actually control where you go when you die.

As I developed as a person, my math and science type of mind slowly started seeing a pattern in society and life. People can manipulate your behaviour by presenting consequences as a result of that behaviour. This exact process is the “IF” “THEN ELSE” computer programming method.

That model is good for controlling children and locking up criminals but it is no good for telling me how to live my life. I slowly stepped out of my “religion” (Catholicism) and only after reading about Agnosticism did I realize that’s what I now was, not that it mattered to me.

I find it very odd that so many different religions can believe so many different things and they are each certain they are right. Like I said, I'm a math guy and that doesn't add up.

Mu current position is that I don’t know what’s going to happen to me when I die so by default, I don’t know if there’s anything I can do about it while I’m alive.

[/ QUOTE ]


You're an atheist. Agnostic is not a belief position, it's a method of gaining knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false; straight-up misinformation.

"Agnostic" was coined to describe a belief in God without wishing to claim certainty regarding his details (as was considered a failing of religions at the time).

"Research" is a method of gaining knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]


No.


[ QUOTE ]
Hutton himself frequently misrepresented the doctrine by describing it as "belief in an unknown and unknowable God"; but agnosticism as defined by Huxley meant not belief, but absence of belief, as much distinct from belief on the one hand as from disbelief on the other; it was the half-way house between the two, where all questions were "open." All that Huxley asked for was evidence, either for or against; but this he believed it impossible to get.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...nd_agnosticism


[/ QUOTE ]


Taking the agnostic stance on knowledge is the equivalence of the atheist belief position.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Growing up Catholic, I was taught where where we go after we die (and for some reason, purgatory was neglected to be mentioned as an option). On top of this, I was taught how to behave so you could actually control where you go when you die.

As I developed as a person, my math and science type of mind slowly started seeing a pattern in society and life. People can manipulate your behaviour by presenting consequences as a result of that behaviour. This exact process is the “IF” “THEN ELSE” computer programming method.

That model is good for controlling children and locking up criminals but it is no good for telling me how to live my life. I slowly stepped out of my “religion” (Catholicism) and only after reading about Agnosticism did I realize that’s what I now was, not that it mattered to me.

I find it very odd that so many different religions can believe so many different things and they are each certain they are right. Like I said, I'm a math guy and that doesn't add up.

Mu current position is that I don’t know what’s going to happen to me when I die so by default, I don’t know if there’s anything I can do about it while I’m alive.

[/ QUOTE ]


You're an atheist. Agnostic is not a belief position, it's a method of gaining knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's interesting. After doing some research I believe I qualify as a weak atheist, a practical atheist, an agnostic atheist and an apathetic agnostic.

However, like I had said, I really don't care what label I am given in this matter.

[/ QUOTE ]


To me it's pretty simple. Either you are a theist (and profess beliefs in unknowable concepts), or you aren't, in which case you are an atheist. Maybe a better word is non-theist.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]

Aha, this is who I thought you were, glad to see you back on your ORIGINAL name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you think that I am?