A few questions from a Christian (Not offensive)

[- AUB -]

Reach

 

Yes, liberal xtians annoy me more than fundies at times, their values are derived from secular society, not the bible, they just project them onto a rationalised version of the mythical Jesus that they still desperately claim was historical. They pick and choose quotes from him, given a liberal humanist spin and claim they are more xtian than those who actually believe in what the bible acutely says, (and are as a result fundie scumbags). Agnosticism I think makes a good temporary position when you’ve just started to study religion and reality, but to hold it indefinitely just shows laziness when it comes to research. It’s not as if there weren’t plenty of facts available that narrow down your options on the path to truth, with religion the first to go.

[Reach]

Reach

 

Yes, liberal xtians annoy me more than fundies at times, their values are derived from secular society, not the bible, they just project them onto a rationalised version of the mythical Jesus that they still desperately claim was historical. They pick and choose quotes from him, given a liberal humanist spin and claim they are more xtian than those who actually believe in what the bible acutely says, (and are as a result fundie scumbags). Agnosticism I think makes a good temporary position when you’ve just started to study religion and reality, but to hold it indefinitely just shows laziness when it comes to research. It’s not as if there weren’t plenty of facts available that narrow down your options on the path to truth, with religion the first to go.

Same here. At least with fundies, you know they are being honest about what they believe. They take a stand and generally stick to it. They do not continually make the salad bar choices we see liberal Xtians make. I couldn't agree more that the liberal crowd is getting their shifting values from secular society. If they never make the final step out of Xtianity, I agree that it's due to laziness and I would add, dishonesty and weakness of character, specifically, a lack of courage and backbone.

 

I can admit to struggling with laziness in some areas of my life but I am determined to be honest, whatever the cost. I have found that it cost plenty to leave Xtianity but it has been worth it. The pursuit of truth and knowing God - I wasted enough of my life chasing something that was never there.

 

Thanks for your post, AUB. You summarized this beautifully.

[Lokmer]

Yes, liberal xtians annoy me more than fundies at times, their values are derived from secular society, not the bible, they just project them onto a rationalised version of the mythical Jesus that they still desperately claim was historical. They pick and choose quotes from him, given a liberal humanist spin and claim they are more xtian than those who actually believe in what the bible acutely says, (and are as a result fundie scumbags).

 

And, of course, the true irony is that fundys who "just believe what the Bible says" are *just* as constrained by their culture and pick and chose *just* as much as the liberals. They just don't know they're doing it.

 

Agnosticism I think makes a good temporary position when you’ve just started to study religion and reality, but to hold it indefinitely just shows laziness when it comes to research. It’s not as if there weren’t plenty of facts available that narrow down your options on the path to truth, with religion the first to go.

 

It's odd, you know. When I was a Christian I was very comfortable with being agnostic. I *knew* I didn't know, but I thought it was reasonable to believe, so I believed with full life-commitment. It was when I learned enough that I couldn't believe without lying that I left. Even after that, I was agnostic for a while because I still believed - or at least *wanted* to believe - in God. God was a lot harder to let go of than Jesus, and took a lot longer. But, eventually, with enough self-probing and thought, you come to realize that "God" is, at best, a comforting metaphor built on an idealization of the best people you've ever known and your hope that there is a cosmic plan somehow. And, while the metaphor can be fun, once you *know* it's a metaphor you can never honestly say "I believe."

 

"Half the people in this world think their metaphors are facts. We call them 'theists.' The other half *know* that they're metaphors. We call them 'atheists.'" -Joseph Campbell

 

-Lokmer

[Guest college_kid215]

Greetings and Goodmorning,

 

I guess this is the hostility I was talking about. I said nothing like this; in fact, I bent over backwards trying to say I wasn't going to start a fight or anything like that. And I am not going to do that now.

 

Granted, I may not have the god like intelligence Lokmer has as I still am an undergraduate. No, I am not an 'official' student of philosophy. I grant you that. I have no problem with reading Augustine, Hobbes, Aquinas, Niche, Sarte, etc. for a strictly interest stake basis. I wish more people would read these instead of watch tv and engage in meaningless activities.

 

Insulting me did not help your arguement. In fact, it's the weakest kind of intellectual defense out there. I may not be as smart as you, but at least I have the civility to attack an arguement and not the person.

 

Now, while I was mildly offended, I will not leave this board or anything like that. I'll stick around and post if everyone wants. It is clear from this post you many of you do not want me hear. I was being bold by challenging my beliefs and coming to a board and not being hateful. If you want me to leave, I will though.

 

Nick

 

P.S.

 

Specifically to Lokmer: Many of you have problems with the abuses people have done in the name of Christianity. Perhaps the way you were treated by some Christians, etc. Don't make the same mistake we did for your beliefs atheism, agnostism, etc.

 

Oh, get the hell off your hobby horse already, dude.  You've demonstrated yourself to be **at least** incapable of nuanced discussion, clueless, and utterly uninterested in the answers to the questions you ask.

 

X is an abbreviation for Christ.  MANY of us here were pastors, ministers, Christian teachers, theologians, and/or in the company of such people regularly while we were in the faith.  A good number of us are also history students and speek/read Koine Greek.  X is an abbreviation used by your own church fathers and leaders for the last thousand years.

 

How DARE you waltz in here with your under-studied scholastic arrogance and presume upon the motives of people you don't know to the point of making unilateral pronouncements on their grammatical nomenclature because it *happens* to strike you as disrespectful?!

 

You sir, are a class-A dip shit.

 

-Lokmer

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest college_kid215]

sorry, "many of you do not want me "here."

 

Greetings and Goodmorning,

 

I guess this is the hostility I was talking about.  I said nothing like this; in fact, I bent over backwards trying to say I wasn't going to start a fight or anything like that.  And I am not going to do that now.

 

Granted, I may not have the god like intelligence Lokmer has as I still am an undergraduate.  No, I am not an 'official' student of philosophy.  I grant you that.  I have no problem with reading Augustine, Hobbes, Aquinas, Niche, Sarte, etc. for a strictly interest stake basis.  I wish more people would read these instead of watch tv and engage in meaningless activities.

 

Insulting me did not help your arguement.  In fact, it's the weakest kind of intellectual defense out there.  I may not be as smart as you, but at least I have the civility to attack an arguement and not the person.

 

Now, while I was mildly offended, I will not leave this board or anything like that.  I'll stick around and post if everyone wants.  It is clear from this post you many of you do not want me hear.  I was being bold by challenging my beliefs and coming to a board and not being hateful.  If you want me to leave, I will though.

 

Nick

 

P.S.

 

Specifically to Lokmer:  Many of you have problems with the abuses people have done in the name of Christianity.  Perhaps the way you were treated by some Christians, etc.  Don't make the same mistake we did for your beliefs atheism, agnostism, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Ouroboros]

For those of you who are curious about the picture that

this xtian was talking about where Calvin is pissing upon

da lawd jebus, here it is...

It's on the main page of ExC.

 

 

He's just tendering the meat... Eeww... I shouldn't have said that!

[white_raven23]

CK,

 

Where have I indicated I don't want you here? Check the posts sweetling.

 

Always remember people like to vent their frustrations a lot. This Forum is often the only place in their lives where they have that freedom.

 

Always take that into consideration. Not everyone takes a deep breath and counts to ten before responding to posts. That's okay.

 

Try not to take it personally.

 

As far as I'm concerned you are perfectly welcome here.

[Ouroboros]

Common misconception.  The word "agnostic" is a useless term that I wish most people would just throw out, because it's really beating around the bush.  Either your believe in God or you don't.  There's no in-between.  If you're not sure if there's a God, but as don't believe as a result, then you're still an atheist.

 

Well, I respect that statement, but I'm not sure I agree. You might be right, and I'm totally in the clouds with this one, but there is a weak atheism and strong atheism, and the strong one is sure that there is not god – what-so-ever -, and the weak is more like an agnostic/atheistic view.

 

My belief is that there is no god, of the reason that I haven't seen anything to prove that he exists, but at the same time I'm very open for a concept of a life force or higher power as soon as something would prove it. It's not that I'm indecisive; it’s that I don’t think we can say for sure, even if the proofs and arguments tell us that god doesn’t exist.

 

So I’m an atheist, I agree, but most people have the wrong conception of what an atheist is. Some people think that is the same as Pagan and Satanism. I’ve noticed the word Agnostic is usually a better way to open people up for discussion before they judge you.

 

Agnosticism for me is like if someone asks me if I believe there is a person name “Jahobabob” in New York. For me the question is ludicrous because there is no way I can make up my mind to believe it or not. The argument against is “That’s a stupid name, no one can have a name like that”, and the argument for is “There’s a lot of people, and some have stupid names”. So my opinion is “I can’t know for sure, but currently I think the name is too stupid for someone to have”. So I'm agnostic.

 

 

(Sorry Jahobabob in NY. I didn't mean to offend you. I only used your name as an example. Ok, we good?)

[chefranden]

True, but like I said in another thread, not everything is perfect there either.

 

Socialism usually mean very high taxes, so be prepared for that.

 

And something that's most amazing is that the crime rate in US is four times higher than Sweden. If anyone would like to talk statistics! Could religion be related to crime rates? Maybe it's higher here just because of all the holiness? Statistics shure hints it.

It could also be related to socialism. Few people get desparate enough to resort to crime. I even suspect that the majority of the crime is white collar.

 

Socialism does mean high taxes, but you get something in return for your taxes besides bombs, bullets, and colorized alert systems. Like low crime rates for instance.

[Ouroboros]

It could also be related to socialism.  Few people get desparate enough to resort to crime.  I even suspect that the majority of the crime is white collar.

 

Socialism does mean high taxes, but you get something in return for your taxes besides bombs, bullets, and colorized alert systems.  Like low crime rates for instance.

 

Actually you have a good point. There are plenty of fraud and white collar crimes, maybe ever more than murders, rapes etc.

 

And yes, you do get something back. My childhood was extremely safe. I never saw a crime (besided the ones I did myself, like stealing money from moms purse) or were in any trouble (but that can be explained by, me, being in church, most of the time...)

[- AUB -]

Reach

 

Glad you agree, the hypocrisy of liberal xtianity is what supports the more extreme brands, as the fundys use the numbers and percentage of so called xtians to justify their agenda. Like moderate Muslims who allow terrorists and extremist of their cult to fester, the entire thing contributes to the harm, not just the fringes.

 

If CK’s a liberal we may have use for him, its not right to simply pick on the nutters, who honestly don’t know any better. The liberal thinking is just as flawed, but with a superficial veneer of reasonability we need to pierce when given the chance. On the mental side the degree of compartmentalisation is far greater for the educated theist, and the rationalisations more severe, and this can be worrying.

 

We need to take back the credit for social and moral progress, it belongs to the pioneers, rebels and freethinkers of the world (and even some liberal theists, though the credit it theirs, not their faith’s), but liberal xtians would have you believe that peace and love is what there cult has been about all along, that the last 1800 years of history was a glitch, and their 5% or less approach to the bible is the “correct” one.

 

With the bible, we can sometime focus too much on the bad, (there’s certainly enough of it) but we do admit there is good, just precious little, and all negated by the evil. But they’d have “love thy neighbour” as truly representative of Jesus, but “slay them before me” as not, despite the fact that “he” said both, just as clearly. Each era takes what it wants, this one is no different, no denomination or period of xtianity sees the whole objective truth, just what is politically and socially convenient. There is no such thing as a “true” xtian, or a “false” one, just idiots serving themselves, and using a bias ridden choice of quotes to justify it all, good or bad, with never any real sense of the difference.

 

Lokmer

 

And, of course, the true irony is that fundys who "just believe what the Bible says" are *just* as constrained by their culture and pick and chose *just* as much as the liberals. They just don't know they're doing it.

 

All denominations have their “slant” but fundies seem able to quote far more of the bible, as they don’t shy away from the barbaric bits, being barbaric themselves. The anti-Semites can see the N.T. bigotry, the gay bashers can see the homophobia, the sexists can see all the female characters properly, the racists can see the genocide and slavery, and the warmongers can see the entire book of Joshua. You get the idea, sure they also quote the better bits, but they see the rest, and get annoyed at the limited quotes coming from liberals, they have a point, if you’re gonna be an xtian try to be a proper one, a complete sack of crap, judgmental and intolerant, just like Jesus.

 

Xtianity – One small leap from reason, One giant step on mankind

 

but I thought it was reasonable to believe,

 

That’s a position they often have, but it’s not reasonable to expect someone to spend there entire lives dedicated to something for which there is no objective evidence. Hope is one thing, as long as we can learn one way or other eventually. But to suggest we should simply wait till we’re dead to find out for sure, when if they’re wrong it will simply carry on anyway is horrendous.

 

It was when I learned enough that I couldn't believe without lying that I left.

 

A very profound point. It is not faith that holds religion together it is ignorance. Once someone, either an educated theist or apologist/creationist happens to learn too much, then it becomes self-deception not to leave. That is why I despise creationist and apologist leaders; they clearly don’t believe that shit anymore than I do.

 

Even after that, I was agnostic for a while because I still believed - or at least *wanted* to believe - in God.

 

Wanted is it, subjective perception. That you acknowledge all this is a testament to how far you’ve come.

 

God was a lot harder to let go of than Jesus,

 

That’s odd, Jesus is usually the last to go, first he’s no longer a god, then he’s just a great teacher, then a significant historical character, then finally a phantom. Liberals see him as a philosopher, an example, or at least a moral person, but this is just clinging to the core of what is just a cult of personality, while trying to convince themselves they are rational. I’ve never had as much of a problem with “god” as Jesus, but then its such a vague “metaphor” if you like, it’s more a projection of the individual, sometimes a telling one.

[Guest college_kid215]

Just to let everyone know. I am very orthodox in my Christian beliefs. So, in that sense, I am a (gasp) fundamentalist.

 

Now, do I think some fundamentalist Christian become too legalistic and hostile about their beliefs, yes I do.

 

Reach

 

Glad you agree, the hypocrisy of liberal xtianity is what supports the more extreme brands, as the fundys use the numbers and percentage of so called xtians to justify their agenda. Like moderate Muslims who allow terrorists and extremist of their cult to fester, the entire thing contributes to the harm, not just the fringes.

 

If CK’s a liberal we may have use for him, its not right to simply pick on the nutters, who honestly don’t know any better. The liberal thinking is just as flawed, but with a superficial veneer of reasonability we need to pierce when given the chance. On the mental side the degree of compartmentalisation is far greater for the educated theist, and the rationalisations more severe, and this can be worrying.

 

We need to take back the credit for social and moral progress, it belongs to the pioneers, rebels and freethinkers of the world (and even some liberal theists, though the credit it theirs, not their faith’s), but liberal xtians would have you believe that peace and love is what there cult has been about all along, that the last 1800 years of history was a glitch, and their 5% or less approach to the bible is the “correct” one.

 

With the bible, we can sometime focus too much on the bad, (there’s certainly enough of it) but we do admit there is good, just precious little, and all negated by the evil. But they’d have “love thy neighbour” as truly representative of Jesus, but “slay them before me” as not, despite the fact that “he” said both, just as clearly. Each era takes what it wants, this one is no different, no denomination or period of xtianity sees the whole objective truth, just what is politically and socially convenient. There is no such thing as a “true” xtian, or a “false” one, just idiots serving themselves, and using a bias ridden choice of quotes to justify it all, good or bad, with never any real sense of the difference.

 

Lokmer

All denominations have their “slant” but fundies seem able to quote far more of the bible, as they don’t shy away from the barbaric bits, being barbaric themselves. The anti-Semites can see the N.T. bigotry, the gay bashers can see the homophobia, the sexists can see all the female characters properly, the racists can see the genocide and slavery, and the warmongers can see the entire book of Joshua. You get the idea, sure they also quote the better bits, but they see the rest, and get annoyed at the limited quotes coming from liberals, they have a point, if you’re gonna be an xtian try to be a proper one, a complete sack of crap, judgmental and intolerant, just like Jesus.

 

Xtianity – One small leap from reason, One giant step on mankind

That’s a position they often have, but it’s not reasonable to expect someone to spend there entire lives dedicated to something for which there is no objective evidence. Hope is one thing, as long as we can learn one way or other eventually. But to suggest we should simply wait till we’re dead to find out for sure, when if they’re wrong it will simply carry on anyway is horrendous.

A very profound point. It is not faith that holds religion together it is ignorance. Once someone, either an educated theist or apologist/creationist happens to learn too much, then it becomes self-deception not to leave. That is why I despise creationist and apologist leaders; they clearly don’t believe that shit anymore than I do.

Wanted is it, subjective perception. That you acknowledge all this is a testament to how far you’ve come.

That’s odd, Jesus is usually the last to go, first he’s no longer a god, then he’s just a great teacher, then a significant historical character, then finally a phantom. Liberals see him as a philosopher, an example, or at least a moral person, but this is just clinging to the core of what is just a cult of personality, while trying to convince themselves they are rational. I’ve never had as much of a problem with “god” as Jesus, but then its such a vague “metaphor” if you like, it’s more a projection of the individual, sometimes a telling one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mr. Neil]

Agnosticism for me is like if someone asks me if I believe there is a person name “Jahobabob” in New York. For me the question is ludicrous because there is no way I can make up my mind to believe it or not. The argument against is “That’s a stupid name, no one can have a name like that”, and the argument for is “There’s a lot of people, and some have stupid names”. So my opinion is “I can’t know for sure, but currently I think the name is too stupid for someone to have”. So I'm agnostic.

Well, there's a difference between nonbelief and disbelief. You can have non belief without disbelief. If an idea is presented to you, and there isn't enough evidence for you to believe it, then barring further evidence, you don't believe it.

 

You'd basically be saying, "I don't believe that such a person exists, but I really don't know." That's not the same as saying, "No, I believe that no such peson exists." See the difference? Belief does not require certainty.

 

There is no middle ground between belief and non-belief. Either you believe something or you don't. It's an incoherent statement.

 

 

Again, agnosticism is saying that you don't know something, which is completely apart from belief. It's not the middle ground between belief and non-belief. It's completely different from these concepts and can actually coexist with them. They're not mutually exclusive.

 

For example, agnosticism can exist with both atheism and theism. You can hold either position while saying that you don't truly have knowledge. There is such a thing as an agnostic theist.

[Ouroboros]

You'd basically be saying, "I don't believe that such a person exists, but I really don't know."  That's not the same as saying, "No, I believe that no such peson exists."  See the difference?  Belief does not require certainty.

 

There is no middle ground between belief and non-belief.  Either you believe something or you don't.  It's an incoherent statement.

 

True, I understand what you mean.

 

Again, agnosticism is saying that you don't know something, which is completely apart from belief.  It's not the middle ground between belief and non-belief.  It's completely different from these concepts and can actually coexist with them.  They're not mutually exclusive.

 

For example, agnosticism can exist with both atheism and theism.  You can hold either position while saying that you don't truly have knowledge.  There is such a thing as an agnostic theist.

 

Right, that’s kind of what I meant. Agnosticism is not the belief in God or no, but just the standpoint that there is no way of proving that God exists or not, and therefore we can never know for sure the same way we know other things in the world.

 

Like the story with the New Yorker, we can prove if he exists by looking up the phonebook or knock doors and asking everyone. So there agnosticism can't be applied.

 

So we're on the same page.

[Lilith]

It was more about a matter of why?  Don't fool me into thinking you are really usings xians as a form of shorthand or to harken back to the greek language.  The point is that there was a number of disrespectful things toward christ (and not just religion as an institution)  Calvin peeing on the jesus fish?  Enlighten me as to how that related to anything but dis-respect?

 

And I don't care if you do that.  This is an ex-christian website.  So I would expect it.  It just seems silly to not want to write the word christ if you think he never existed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, when I do use the term "xian" it for the very purpose of shorthand. Sometimes I even capitalize it. I even used the term when I was a xian. What do you hear in your head when you see xian? Is it "Ex-ian?" I hear, "Christian." It's shorthand. Just like when I see fwiw I 'hear" in my head, "for what it's worth," not some strange noise. Same with LOL. I don't hear "loll" but "laugh out loud." I could go on, but I think you must get my point.

 

 

Edit to add: I know I'm coming in late on this thread. If my reply is completely off-topic, I apologize. Just ignore it and continue.

[quicksand]

Don't fool me into thinking you are really usings xians as a form of shorthand or to harken back to the greek language.

Yes, "xian" is shorthand. Perhaps Chef will give you the lecture.

 

The point is that there was a number of disrespectful things toward christ (and not just religion as an institution)

Christ is not even a real name, but an honorific. Neither is Jesus. Another honorific. You don't even know who you are addressing in the bible and who we are allegedly disrespecting.

 

And should that be a capital "C" in christ? Why look at the disrespect you've shown...

 

Enlighten me as to how that related to anything but dis-respect?

Obviously we've hurt your ego and by your invested falsely commited faith. I can see why your irked.

 

When we make an "insult" against your water-walking man, its directly making an insult against you.

 

Ho hum.

[LloydDobler]

Also off topic, but it's good to note that Bill Watterson has never and will never license the image of Calvin or Hobbes. He won't make stuffed animals or coffee mugs or any of that stuff.

 

Any image you see of either one, outside of his comics and a few promo items, is an unauthorized copyright infringement.

[Ouroboros]

The point really wasn't about the Chi Rho.  It was more about a matter of why?  Don't fool me into thinking you are really usings xians as a form of shorthand or to harken back to the greek language.  The point is that there was a number of disrespectful things toward christ (and not just religion as an institution)  Calvin peeing on the jesus fish?  Enlighten me as to how that related to anything but dis-respect?

 

And I don't care if you do that.  This is an ex-christian website.  So I would expect it.  It just seems silly to not want to write the word christ if you think he never existed.

 

Well, you can say G.W. Bush without crhitsinans go postal, can't you.

 

And what about WWJD.

 

Return all thos signs immediately, because they're so disrespectful, not writing out the Hole Adorable Lord Jesus name.

 

Is should be: WWJESUSCHRISTUSSONOFGODD

to be correct, but it's so frigging long!

[Ouroboros]

Actually, when I do use the term "xian" it for the very purpose of shorthand.  Sometimes I even capitalize it.  I even used the term when I was a xian.  What do you hear in your head when you see xian?  Is it "Ex-ian?"  I hear, "Christian."  It's shorthand.  Just like when I see fwiw I 'hear" in my head, "for what it's worth," not some strange noise.  Same with LOL.  I don't hear "loll" but "laugh out loud."  I could go on, but I think you must get my point.

Edit to add:  I know I'm coming in late on this thread.  If my reply is completely off-topic, I apologize.  Just ignore it and continue.

 

 

You're making a good point.

 

We also use l3375p33k too? pwnd, w00t, n00b, and no linguistic penguin is in here ranting about our low moral and ethics.

[Ouroboros]

Also off topic, but it's good to note that Bill Watterson has never and will never license the image of Calvin or Hobbes.  He won't make stuffed animals or coffee mugs or any of that stuff.

 

Any image you see of either one, outside of his comics and a few promo items, is an unauthorized copyright infringement.

 

Which means that the one with Calvin bending knees, praying, infront of the cross, is copyright infringment too, and the maker of that sign is a sinner!

[Vulgaris Prime]

Specifically to Lokmer:  Many of you have problems with the abuses people have done in the name of Christianity.  Perhaps the way you were treated by some Christians, etc.  Don't make the same mistake we did for your beliefs atheism, agnostism, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Mr. Neil]

Many of you have problems with the abuses people have done in the name of Christianity.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason we blame Christianity for the terrible acts done in its name is because those terrible acts are mandated by the Christian religion!?

 

Slavery. The oppression of women. The intolerance of homosexuality. All of these things are endorsed in the Bible. Who or what else would you like us to point our fingers at?

[Eponymic]

Just to let everyone know.  I am very orthodox in my Christian beliefs.  So, in that sense, I am a (gasp) fundamentalist.

 

Now, do I think some fundamentalist Christian become too legalistic and hostile about their beliefs, yes I do.

 

First I have to decide if there is an ultimate being in the universe or not. I cannot conclude that everything is random. My belief is much more involved, but I won't get preachy.

 

Then, since I am a theist, I have to decide what religion seems most plausible. To me Christianity does. Again, I really don't want to get preachy. I can elaborate if you so desire, but i doubt it's what you are looking for.

 

Hi there,

 

I don't want to be harsh in any way, I'm not feeling hostile or abrasive towards you. But I am feeling very confused here.

 

In one post you say you're really not sure at all & are a theist, in another you're probably a Orthodox fundamentalist.

 

If you're beliefs are that strong, why is there this doubt, uncertainty, & contradiction?

 

If you truly are searching for where you belong, why are you so convinced that a particular religion must have the answer. Isn't it just as plausible that the answer is outside of religion?

 

Is it because you're merely going with what you've been trained to do by your upbringing and aren't really ready to use your own cognitive abilities independent of a religious structure telling you what to do?

[Amethyst]

Either your believe in God or you don't. There's no in-between. If you're not sure if there's a God, but as don't believe as a result, then you're still an atheist.

 

I respectfully disagree. I cannot say whether I believe in god until god is proven to exist. Nor can I say I don't believe in god, because so far god's existence has not been completely ruled out. I will not, however, base my belief or disbelief on blind faith or even blind un-faith. I would rather base it on logic and scientific evidence than anything else.

[Cerise]

I respectfully disagree.  I cannot say whether I believe in god until god is proven to exist.  Nor can I say I don't believe in god, because so far god's existence has not been completely ruled out.  I will not, however, base my belief or disbelief on blind faith or even blind un-faith.  I would rather base it on logic and scientific evidence than anything else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agnosticism seems to be circular thinking to me. A claim that you don't know something, and you have to know it in order to not believe in it? I don't have to "know" what a snarfblat is in order to say I don't believe that it rules the universe, do I?