|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2008 : 23:05:50 [Permalink]
|
Dave, et al.....
In terms of usage, agnostic seems to be the more useful word. As an adjective, it can be used to modify no end of nouns and is a rich vocabulary resource. Atheistic is generally understood to have a direct theistic or religious connotation and consequently has much less utility in the writer's craft.
However, the noun form, atheism, seems to me to to describe a quantitatively different belief posture than the word agnosticism. As in all else, I do not feel there can be absolutes in a belief system, only degrees of conviction. Consequently, atheism does not describe a total disbelief in theism, only a high degree of doubt (or a very low degree of conviction).
Similarly, agnosticism denotes a significant degree of disbelief in theism, but less than the atheistic position.
The encyclopedic description of atheism....| Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. |
... as compared to agnosticism....| Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of god, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality is unknown or inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience. |
....does not appear to define a qualitative difference between the two positions.
Dave states:| The people who think that "atheism" means only "positive belief in no god(s)" and that agnosticism is a 50-50 toss-up position are the sorts of people who simply don't understand the position of taking a strong stand on the lack of evidence. They assume that everyone has either made a choice or has chosen to not choose at all - a black-or-white world which simply doesn't match up to reality. |
How about a position that atheism can be anywhere between (about) 80% and 99% anti theistic, and an agnostic position may range between (about) 30% and 80% anti theistic? Obviously, the percentage figures are arbitrary; the concept is that there is a continuum between the two extremes: atheism tends strongly towards total disbelief, whereas agnosticism may range from mild doubt to highly incredulous. One shades into the other, but the degree of disbelief conviction is the differentiation between the two postures.
As you correctly point out, Dave, there is little or nothing in the real world (excluding mathematics) that is absolute, it is not a black or white world, rather one of infinite shades of grey where neither black or white exist. Why shouldn't Theism shade downward across a wide range of Agnosticism into Atheism near the bottom of the Scale of Belief? After all, between the dictionaries, and the encyclopedias; the Greeks, Cicero, the Church; Huxley, Hume, Russell, and Ingersoll; Seeker, you, me, and every person that has posted in this thread; it's really just a matter of opinion! |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 01/27/2008 : 23:54:58 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
but the degree of disbelief conviction is the differentiation between the two postures.
|
Actually there is a much easier way to look at it.
Atheism = no belief in a deity.
Agnosticism = claims for and against the existance of deities both lack any reasonable measure of evidence to support them, therefore they are both dismissed as invalid and unsound positions.
You will note that agnosticism includes "no belief in a deity".
I'll grant you your point about how the word is commonly used though.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2008 : 08:31:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by chaloobi
The god is great phrase was meant to encapsulate everything, including repentance.
Regarding why, you say it's because there is no Faith after death. Extrapolating from there, there's no Faith because being in Hell is definitive evidence of God's existance. And you can't know God exists and have Faith that God exists at the same time; knowledge cancels Faith. And God most values those who make life-altering decisions based on no real information.
Of course the next question is why in the world God would value devotion without information. Some thoughts:
A. Some chalk it up to the Myster of Faith; don't know, don't care, have Faith.
B. Others would chalk it up to selling snake oil - Faith arose not because God values it but because it's an extraordinarily effective way for human clergy to create and maintain believers in something that does not exist.
C. The most reasonable theistic explanation I've ever heard was that God is interested in Free Will and knows that certain knowledge of his existance would have people doing His will out of fear instead of understanding his message and embracing it for the right reasons; compassion, love, understanding, forgiveness etc.
IMHO A is just lazy and stupid and God should be disgusted in those who subscribe to it. B is probably the most likely answer, though it renders the whole discussion moot. C is the only acceptable answer, again IMHO, if you're going to be a theist or agnostic even.
But if you accept C, it doesn't make sense at all in the explanation for why you can't repent after death. In C, Faith is a mechanism necessary to help us learn to be good. It is not an end in itself. So it shouldn't matter if you repent and want to have a loving relationship with God after you die. God should be like, "hey, better late than never, man. Welcome aboard." Why wouldn't he? Why wouldn't he in the case of A, for that matter? Most consistantly of all Christians these days refer to God as all compassionate, loving, and forgiving - how can that be reconciled with eternal damnation regardless of repentance?
|
RO 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (NIV)
God gives proof in the form of creation and your conscience.
|
This passage is not support for the existance of God. I don't have any more faith in the truth of the bible than I have in the existance of God. They are one in the same.
And Creation is a nice bit of work. There's good evidence it had a beginning. We live in a cause / effect universe so you could reasonably presume there was a First Cause for that beginning. But that's as far as you can go, I think. And there's no way at all to tie this cosmology to Christian mythology. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2008 : 08:35:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Chaloobi.....
You state:C. The most reasonable theistic explanation I've ever heard was that God is interested in Free Will and knows that certain knowledge of his existance would have people doing His will out of fear instead of understanding his message and embracing it for the right reasons; compassion, love, understanding, forgiveness etc.
|
Yeah, the trouble with all the Free Will bullshit is that Free Will is self-contradictory. According to most theists, Man's will cannot supercede God's will. Therefore, man can only have Free Will if God so wishes it in every instance. If God were to decide that you, for instance, were not to have Free Will, you would not. You would become a Godrobot. Period.
So it is not possible to have free will in every possible instance, and therefore it is not truly Free Will.
The whole preposterous concept reminds me of the good Bishop Berkeley's arguments about whether God was about in the Quad at Balliol College, Oxford
There was a young man who said, God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad
answered appropriately by Berkeley's philosophy....
Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd:
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, GOD.
|
Just because God can enslave you doesn't mean he has. That's the idea of Faith, that god likes free will and is bending backwards to ensure it. If he's going to do the Faith thing to do that, with all the associated nonsense, I'm sure he's got enough will power to resist enslaving you. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2008 : 08:38:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Most consistantly of all Christians these days refer to God as all compassionate, loving, and forgiving - how can that be reconciled with eternal damnation regardless of repentance?
|
This is a misunderstanding of God. A man centered gospel that is sending people to hell in America. God hates people that sin. If he hates the sin and not the sinner then why would God send a sinner to hell after death?
Psalm 5:5
Psalm 11:5
Lev 20:23
Prov 6:16-19
Hosea 9:15
Eph 1:6
God hates the sin and not the sinner is a bumper sticker and not Gods word.
|
So God is hateful. And jealous, of course. Vengeful too. Brutal to be sure. And you worship him why, again? Fear, at least partly? Right? Defeats the whole purpose of Faith, that. No? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2008 : 08:39:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Robb
God hates people that sin. |
We're all born sinners. God hates us all, <snip>
|
That would explain a few things about the human condition... |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2008 : 13:08:44 [Permalink]
|
Robb: This is all pointless. Even if the bible is the word of GOD, How do we know that you are reading the bible right? How do YOU know? Different christians splinter cells disagree on how to read the book. Why do you think you are so special and get it right?
If something happened to you, you received a message of somesort, then itīs not faith that you have, but proof. Isnīt it.
If I was given proof that a christian god existed, I too would be a christian.
Muslims have faith in their god.
Christians Have faith in theirs.
Jews as well.
Etc, Etc.
Why do you think YOU of all people are the one who is right?
cheers!
perro de tokio |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2008 : 06:06:14 [Permalink]
|
| Really, the whole Soul to Heaven / Hell mythology is a big fat cultural anachronism. Or, unfortunately, it should be. The reason Faith is so important now is that we know better. The depths of voluntary ignorance and self-deception required to embrace the nonsense of eternal damnation - or reward - border on delusion. It says a lot about the value of early indoctrination and the power of the geneticly programmed propensity for tribal affiliation and obedience. If we all looked at the empirical evidence and were able to make an objective and free decision, there would be few Faithful who were not true religous nuts. But our minds, as a species, are anything but free, rational and independant. On a cultural level, we're nuts and Faith proves it. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 01/29/2008 06:08:16 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2008 : 14:56:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by perrodetokio
Robb: This is all pointless. Even if the bible is the word of GOD, How do we know that you are reading the bible right? How do YOU know? Different Christians splinter cells disagree on how to read the book. Why do you think you are so special and get it right? |
My first assumption is that the bible is true. That is what I compare what I believe with. I do not claim to be correct in everything. I doubt there is one person who is correct on everything the bible teaches. However, it is clear that the core doctrine of Christianity is that we are sinners (have broken Gods just and Holy law) and cannot save ourselves by works or anything we do. Jesus is God and died for our sins, was resurrected and if we repent and have faith in him (a work of God) we will receive eternal life. If we do not we will be justly punished in hell. If you do not believe this then you are not a Christian. It is hard to argue that the Bible does not teach this.
Many other beliefs that divide the church are not foundational truths that will keep you from being saved, such as instrumental music, worshiping Mary, keeping the Sabbath day, home vs. building churches etc. Now this is all predicated on the Bible being the truth. I cannot prove that to you in a way that there is no doubt.
My questions to you are why you care about others people's faith? If God odes not exist then there is nothing I can do about my faith. Isn't it a product of natural forces that even you do not know where these forces came from? So why do you think that I have any power to change my mind and reject faith?
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2008 : 15:35:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
My first assumption is that the bible is true. |
Why?| My questions to you are why you care about others people's faith? |
I know you weren't asking me, but I care because "you must consent to this authority based for of eternal punishment" is a dangerous worldview that has caused a whole lot of suffering already, and not just from Christians.| If God odes not exist then there is nothing I can do about my faith. |
You've got that exactly backwards. If God doesn't exist then you (and you alone) are responsible for what you believe as an independent adult. You can choose to stop assuming that the Bible is true.| Isn't it a product of natural forces that even you do not know where these forces came from? So why do you think that I have any power to change my mind and reject faith? |
What makes faith different - in terms of your ability to change your mind - than anything else you've ever thought? Have you never changed your mind about anything?
And why is it that you think that only when God exists do you have some power over your own mindset? Are you saying that your free will is evidence for God's existence?
Whatever the answer, there is some evidence that perhaps religious ideation is a genetic trait. That is, that we are hard-wired for religious belief to some extent or other. But we're certainly not hard-wired for literalist Christianity. And we're also hard-wired to learn. They don't call it "toilet training" for nothing - human beings aren't genetically programmed to use a commode, we have to be taught that.
What makes faith different? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2008 : 16:12:45 [Permalink]
|
Robb said:
| My first assumption is that the bible is true. |
Then, obviously, you have never read it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2008 : 17:29:38 [Permalink]
|
Ok, now the drive by trolling for lapsed Christians has now degenerated into a discussion on agnosticism and atheism.
How I tell them apart.
Agnosticism comes in two flavors
atheistic agnostism (common) - does not assume the existance of a diety and cannot currently ascertain the truth value for existance of a diety
theistic agnosticism (rare) - assumes the existance of a diety and cannot currently ascertian the truth value for the existance of a diety.
Atheism from the latin root "a theos" meaning without knowledge of God(s). Simply put, lack of a belief in God(dess(es)). Does not require an active disbelief or denial of any theological constructs. The default settings for humans immediately post-natal.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2008 : 05:52:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
However, it is clear that the core doctrine of Christianity is that we are sinners (have broken Gods just and Holy law) and cannot save ourselves by works or anything we do. Jesus is God and died for our sins, was resurrected and if we repent and have faith in him (a work of God) we will receive eternal life. If we do not we will be justly punished in hell.
|
We are born with original sin. Its not a choice of ours. How is it "just" that we be tormented in hell for eternity because we are not convinced by an inconsistent and self-contradicting book who's followers use unconvincing and often ignorant lines of argument? And all for something we had no choice in.
If God were to reveal himself to me in a convincing fashion and then give me the choice to accept or reject Him, then perhaps the punishment would be just. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2008 : 06:05:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Ok, now the drive by trolling for lapsed Christians has now degenerated into a discussion on agnosticism and atheism.
How I tell them apart.
Agnosticism comes in two flavors
atheistic agnostism (common) - does not assume the existance of a diety and cannot currently ascertain the truth value for existance of a diety
theistic agnosticism (rare) - assumes the existance of a diety and cannot currently ascertian the truth value for the existance of a diety.
Atheism from the latin root "a theos" meaning without knowledge of God(s). Simply put, lack of a belief in God(dess(es)). Does not require an active disbelief or denial of any theological constructs. The default settings for humans immediately post-natal.
|
What about, uh, agnostic agnosticism (very common) - recognizes you can't know (for the time being at least) if there's a deity or not and doesn't assume one way or the other.
Your theistic agnosticism sounds like Deism, which, IMHO is about as harmless a form of theism as you're going to find. "Yeah, we think there's probably a god but it doesn't appear to have revealed itself to humanity or be particularly interested in human affairs. No tithe required." |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 01/30/2008 06:07:01 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2008 : 09:32:57 [Permalink]
|
I remember my father telling me that he thought christianity was bunk if for no other reason than when christians look at a baby they do not see a perfect little child, they see a sinner that is inherently flawed and destined for damnation unless it is fixed.
Original sin has got to be the dumbest idea I have every heard of. How did Adam and Eve even sin if they didn't know right from wrong? According to christians, God designed people as little morons who were incapable of knowledge. You don't hold mentally retarded people or toddlers responsible for there actions.
Hey, maybe that's the point of creationism; rejecting science and logic to get back to being the simple minded dolts that god intended when he made them.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Hell, your final destination?
