Stuck Between Agnosticism and Christianity

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not using a don't test god approach bunny...I am saying I don't focus on hell...Yes, hell could be a result if I screw up, but I don't continuously focus on that...I focus on getting what I can get right right...and no I'm not faultless...

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not focussing on you and what will happen to you. Do you find it hard to reconcile worshipping a god who is going to torture other people for eternity because they made a mistake in interpreting the bible? I cant reconcile that sort of being with the loving god I believe in.

[ QUOTE ]
As for defending to guard against misinterpretation that may not be enough...I could defend something aptly and still misunderstand something or misapply something, but that's why we have prayer and grace and Christ as our mediator...Christianity isn't in how well you defend it, its in how well you trust in God...As for all the snares people set, that's to be expected...Division is easy, its Unity that's hard...and Christians are after unity with God through the gift of his Son...

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure you can make a mistake - I didnt mean rationality was a flawless guide to truth. But you must be better off if you make an effort to defend your views than if you just smile beatifically and say "god told me" dont you think?

[Splendour]

I have no problem with the reconciliation because I trust in God's wisdom...God provides a lot of tools for people to use and people have been instructed to examine their own hearts, to pray and ask for forgiveness...He knows we're not perfect and we have to have humility and acknowledge our own imperfections to acheive spiritual growth...

As for arguing points, a few arguments and an occasional one may be required for informing the general public but in general not a lot of arguing...In arguing people lose their humility and become prideful...they want to win the immediate argument and are not looking at future repercussions...What does it avail me to win an argument at the price of someone else's soul? I could win an argument, you could lose your soul...and guess what ...I'm still wrong after winning the argument because I was suppose to look out for your best interest not win an argument with you...maybe I will lose my soul too....What is that old phrase...for what does it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his soul...there's very little peace in arguing or nitpicking, but study and reading and an occasional respectful discussion is helpful...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You might as well say that a Christian's lack of belief in Thor is just as much a religion as his Christianity. No it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

To the extent that Christians devote hours of their lives debunking Thor-worship on internet message boards, your analogy holds.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You might as well say that a Christian's lack of belief in Thor is just as much a religion as his Christianity. No it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

To the extent that Christians devote hours of their lives debunking Thor-worship on internet message boards, your analogy holds.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that I've never understood.

Besides the "atheistic pulpit", my comment about atheism being a religion was a direct reference to atheism being something that comes about by faith.

The atheists still "believe" in something, even if it's only science. Considering some of the political views of some of the resident conspiracy theorists on this board, I find such faith surprising.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm? Atheists don't believe in science. I mean, maybe lots of them do but it has nothing to do with atheism.

[vhawk01]

[ 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 ]

True story, many Christians wear shoes.

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

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 ]

Except a betting man would never take "all the religions ever practiced by even a single person on Earth" over "all the infinite possible religions that could ever exist" would he? So it doesn't really matter all that much WHAT most of the religions on that list believe re: Hell. That is, unless you have confidence in man's ability to discern things about the Truth of the afterlife or an equal confidence in God choosing to reveal his Word in some form or another. But that all seems like begging the question, no reason to think God would be anything like any of that.

[tame_deuces]

[ 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.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
As for arguing points, a few arguments and an occasional one may be required for informing the general public but in general not a lot of arguing...In arguing people lose their humility and become prideful...they want to win the immediate argument and are not looking at future repercussions...What does it avail me to win an argument at the price of someone else's soul? I could win an argument, you could lose your soul...and guess what ...I'm still wrong after winning the argument because I was suppose to look out for your best interest not win an argument with you...maybe I will lose my soul too....What is that old phrase...for what does it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his soul...there's very little peace in arguing or nitpicking, but study and reading and an occasional respectful discussion is helpful...

[/ QUOTE ]
By argument I dont mean shouting and getting cross. I mean providing reasons for believing some proposition through reasoned discussion. I think cultivating the ability to do that in yourself and others has no downside. (There's no reason the discussion cant remain respectful imo).

[Alex-db]

[ 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.

[MidGe]

[ 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!