This is what I think of religion.

[dullard]

You have it all wrong (when you mention that theists/athiests are only at the ends of the continuous spectrum).

[*]Thiests say there is most likely a god given the data they work with. For example one thiest may think there is a 95% chance that there is a god.
[*]Athiests say there is most likely not a god given the data they work with. For example, one athiest may think there is a 95% chance that there is not a god.
[*]Agnostics cannot or will not make a choice. They say the evidence is exactly 50/50.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

There you go, although I do not understand the point of your statement in direct relation to what Looney and I are talking about...

i agree it isnt directly related, but i wanted to help define the practical and pragmatic use for the word science.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

Originally posted by: Looney
Meh, to me an agnostic is the worst type. They're just too lazy to have looked for the 'truth'.

Why can't being an agnostic a truth? Truth is relative. What Christians believe is their truth, as is for Judaism, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhism and so on. Millions die each year believing what they truly believe.

My truth is that religions doesn't matter to me. Just as a theists' truth is relative to them as is an atheists'.

So, just as a random example. If someone asks you if ghosts exist...you would say the true answer is I don't care if they exist? wow...going out on a limb there

Let me answer your question with my own:

Did you know that only 400 years ago, the whole WORLD thought the earth was flat? Both atheists and theists are astonished at this discovery. Everyone was wrong except Galileo.

That was our science back then. This is today's science now. Can our science explain ghosts currently?

Look up the definition science. It is trying to better upstand the world around us as we learn through experience.

I think that example actually undermines your premise. (Of course, there are other examples that support your premise too.)

Based on the comprehension and logical proof available at the time, people thought the world was flat. If we rely solely on our comprehension and logical proof then, we can never conclude that we know anything. Agnostic pluralism, which sounds quite reasonable in theory, becomes in praticality pure relativism and/or existentialism because of the impossibility of ever reaching a conclusion.

Let me put it this way:
To reach a conclusion, one must use logical premises.
How does one conclude that the logical premises are accurate and complete?

 

[E equals MC2]

Originally posted by: dullard
You have it all wrong.

[*]Thiests say there is most likely a god given the data they work with. For example one thiest may think there is a 95% chance that there is a god.
[*]Athiests say there is most likely not a god given the data they work with. For example, one athiest may think there is a 95% change that there is not a god.
[*]Agnostics cannot or will not make a choice. They say the evidence is exactly 50/50.

Wrong. Theists simply outright believe in a god- their god, regardless of 'given data'. That is what self-sustaining faith is.

Now, the kicker is, if hypothetically it became an irrefutable indisputable universal FACT that there is NO god. Theists will continue to believe in their god as regard the truth as another 'satan's temptation.'

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2
Theists simply outright believe in a god- their god, regardless of 'given data'. That is what self-sustaining faith is.

False, false, false, false, and false. There are times when even the most staunch thiest questions his/her god. Same goes with the most outspoken athiests (often at their death bed).

An agnostic is the only one who simply won't even make a logical guess.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

Very well said. I think we can even close the thread here. I know that I'm just a 25 year old young adult still learning with much growing up to do. In the meanwhile, the FACT is that thousands die everyday believing in their own religion or lack of one.

This is a questions actually directed to Christians in particular since I've turned out from one: If God truly loved us, why does he create hell? Why John 3:16 literally?

thank you for asking that question. you raise the point of pain and suffering. an EXCELLENT point! it gave me chills when i read that because you are truly trying to understand. whether or not you believe what i have to say is beside the point. the fact is you are probing and that i truly admire.

god desires a relationship with us. the christian god truly is a loving god with grace coming out of every orifice, but if we were forced into a relationship with him, what good would it be? if you force something on someone, how likely are they to be receptive of it?

pain and suffering are the manifestation of being apart from god. this has much deeper and longer meaning that i care to type (in a hurry right now, sorry), but again, VERY good question. this is a huge stumbling block for TONS of people (even me sometimes). if god loves us, why on earth would he send us to hell? if we had no choice but to go to heaven, there would be no chance for to have a relationship with god and understand true grace and compassion. you have to be able to make a choice to love or not love/embrace or not embrace god.

pain and suffering is hard to understand, and your perception of the world and your experiences which have brought you to where you are right this very moment will affect how you understand what i just said. your worldview stems from your very core and it is pervasive to your every move. think about that.

 

[E equals MC2]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: E equals MC2
Theists simply outright believe in a god- their god, regardless of 'given data'. That is what self-sustaining faith is.

False, false, false, false, and false.

Ask your typical church goer if they outright believe in a god. They do. I know so, because I used to be a passionate christian.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2
Ask your typical church goer if they outright believe in a god.

There are times when even the most staunch thiest questions his/her god (often at a family member's/friend's deathbed). Same goes with the most outspoken athiests (often at their own death bed).

They do. I know so, because I used to be a passionate christian.

And now you question it (because you claim to be an agnostic). Thereby proving my point.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

Originally posted by: dullard
You have it all wrong.

[*]Thiests say there is most likely a god given the data they work with. For example one thiest may think there is a 95% chance that there is a god.
[*]Athiests say there is most likely not a god given the data they work with. For example, one athiest may think there is a 95% change that there is not a god.
[*]Agnostics cannot or will not make a choice. They say the evidence is exactly 50/50.

Wrong. Theists simply outright believe in a god- their god, regardless of 'given data'. That is what self-sustaining faith is.

Now, the kicker is, if hypothetically it became an irrefutable indisputable universal FACT that there is NO god. Theists will continue to believe in their god as regard the truth as another 'satan's temptation.'

at this current point in time, i fail to see how we could ever prove the existance of god. i regard myself to be falliable and finite, so i could be wrong, but the story i have found to be true in my own experience has led me to believe in god and try to live my life accordingly. if evidence was shown and proved to be 100% true, beyond the shadow of a doubt, then id like to think i would have enough nads to swallow my pride and admit i was wrong. however, what i have experienced in life gives me a more than gutteral feeling that god exists and is alive today in my life. you are welcome to disagree as i said, though. this is my experience and how i have discovered truth as you have it through my reality and interpretation.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Looney
Meh, to me an agnostic is the worst type. They're just too lazy to have looked for the 'truth'.

Quite the opposite. Agnostics disdain people who think that "truth" is the their own personal prejudices.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: E equals MC2
Ask your typical church goer if they outright believe in a god.

There are times when even the most staunch thiest questions his/her god. Same goes with the most outspoken athiests (often at their death bed).

this is because you often encounter an event you can not explain with your current life experience. delving into thought/prayer/scripture can often reveal an answer to a question that has caused you to stumble. it takes patience and understanding, which if you will also note is a large part of christianity if it is followed as jesus intended it to be. love your neighbor.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2
Well, the subtitle is meant to stir you up, so you could enter this thread. Please don't take it offensively.

1. Theists believe in a god although we cannot comprehend and logically prove that there is one. They're ignorant to conclude so.

2. Atheists conclude and completely rule out that there isn't a god. I believe this is just as ignorant. Our knowledge of humanity is completely premature. There are many things we still cannot explain. To make such a leap of decision is just as stretchy as Theists proclaiming that there is a god.

I am an agnostic pluralist.

Being an agnostic is a clear stance. It's not avoiding to making up the mind, since s/he disagrees distinctively with both theists and atheists. I simply profess we do not have enough evidence or sophisticated knowledge to lean either way. Thousands died today as both theists/atheists/agnostic/indifferent. Does it really matter in the end? Death comes to us all. Life is too short to point fingers and waste time enforcing your own religion. (or your anti-religion) Go out there and just enjoy life.

I just enjoy life while accepting everyone as they are (which theists and atheists often have a hard time with.) That is where pluralism / relativism comes in.

That's wimp agnosticism.

Real agnosticism is that it's not that we don't have enough evidence or knowledge, but that it's not even possible for us to know whether or not God exists. In other words, because the concept of God is what it is, there is no way we can know if he exists, or if he doesn't exist.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
That's wimp agnosticism.

Real agnosticism is that it's not that we don't have enough evidence or knowledge, but that it's not even possible for us to know whether or not God exists. In other words, because the concept of God is what it is, there is no way we can know if he exists, or if he doesn't exist.

Correct. We will never know or not know, save through the personal experience of death.

 

[E equals MC2]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

Very well said. I think we can even close the thread here. I know that I'm just a 25 year old young adult still learning with much growing up to do. In the meanwhile, the FACT is that thousands die everyday believing in their own religion or lack of one.

This is a questions actually directed to Christians in particular since I've turned out from one: If God truly loved us, why does he create hell? Why John 3:16 literally?

thank you for asking that question. you raise the point of pain and suffering. an EXCELLENT point! it gave me chills when i read that because you are truly trying to understand. whether or not you believe what i have to say is beside the point. the fact is you are probing and that i truly admire.

god desires a relationship with us. the christian god truly is a loving god with grace coming out of every orifice, but if we were forced into a relationship with him, what good would it be? if you force something on someone, how likely are they to be receptive of it?

pain and suffering are the manifestation of being apart from god. this has much deeper and longer meaning that i care to type (in a hurry right now, sorry), but again, VERY good question. this is a huge stumbling block for TONS of people (even me sometimes). if god loves us, why on earth would he send us to hell? if we had no choice but to go to heaven, there would be no chance for to have a relationship with god and understand true grace and compassion. you have to be able to make a choice to love or not love/embrace or not embrace god.

pain and suffering is hard to understand, and your perception of the world and your experiences which have brought you to where you are right this very moment will affect how you understand what i just said. your worldview stems from your very core and it is pervasive to your every move. think about that.

Thanks for your post. It brought a smile, reminded me of my own Christian days (I'm humoring myself.)

You are absolutely on the dot. This isn't something I concluded overnight. Being raised in a Christian family (My mother is a passionate Christian) and Christian community even throughout college, I can relate. I partok in leadership roles, teaching bible study, mission trips and so on throughout my middle school, HS and college years- and I shed genuine tears and professed love for my God. It is what helped me shaped who I am today.

And now I feel that I'm ready to discover more. I'm currently 24. In the past 3 years, I started to have doubts (in Christianity sense.) I took this very seriously and longed for better understanding of my own religion- Christianity.

I actually came back from a retreat just past saturday and was engaged in a very insightful discussion with the church's pastor (who holds Harvard Ph.D in theology). We talked on and on about the point you just brought up...

To simply put, it all sound like a man made rule for me. The fact that "we have to have freewill so we can love him by choice, if not we go to hell etc" just sounds too.. human-made to me. I mean, if God is really an almighty God, why is there a need for such rule?

I hope you understand what I'm struggling with in such a short response.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
this is because you often encounter an event you can not explain with your current life experience.

I think you and I are on the same page. No thiest believes 100% at all times in their life. There is always the occasional pause where you don't know how to feel. The same goes for athiests. Thus, E equals MC2's view that they are always at the extremes is wrong.

You put your life experiences together and state that most likely there is a god. Great for you.

I put my life experiences together and state that there most likely is not a god. Great for me.

E equals MC2 put his/her life experiences together and is unable to proceed. He is in a state of confusion/indecision.

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Real agnosticism is that it's not that we don't have enough evidence or knowledge, but that it's not even possible for us to know whether or not God exists. In other words, because the concept of God is what it is, there is no way we can know if he exists, or if he doesn't exist.

Of course theists/athiests know you can't prove god's existance. And they know it isn't possible to know for sure if a god exists. Thus you say everyone is agnostic. That is a silly definition of agnosticism - and a useless defintion of it. You basically stated that strong theists are agnostic and that strong athiests are agnostic.

No, a real agnostic is someone who is paralyzed in the thought process of which is more likely (god existing or got not existing).

 

[E equals MC2]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: E equals MC2
Ask your typical church goer if they outright believe in a god.

There are times when even the most staunch thiest questions his/her god (often at a family member's/friend's deathbed). Same goes with the most outspoken athiests (often at their own death bed).

They do. I know so, because I used to be a passionate christian.

And now you question it (because you claim to be an agnostic). Thereby proving my point.

Right, and agnostic currently suits what I'm currently going through. It's not merely a small window of doubt like you describe in your situation. Things genuinely bother me and it's gotten worse and worse when I sit through a church service.

Nothing particularly against Christianity, it just happens to be the religion I was brought up under.

 

[NatePo717]

Thiest right here.

 

[E equals MC2]

You put your life experiences together and state that most likely there is a god. Great for you.

I put my life experiences together and state that there most likely is not a god. Great for me.

E equals MC2 put his/her life experiences together and is unable to proceed. He is in a state of confusion/indecision.
No, a real agnostic is someone who is paralyzed in the thought process of which is more likely (god existing or got not existing).

dullard, I don't know how my (or any agnostics') stance cannot be valid. You state that concluding to be a theist or an atheist is a choice. Being an agnostic is not a choice? You fail to explain sufficiently why you discard agnostic stance as 'a mere confusion/indecision'

It's a clear decision against both theists and atheists.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2
Right, and agnostic currently suits what I'm currently going through. It's not merely a small window of doubt like you describe in your situation. Things genuinely bother me and it's gotten worse and worse when I sit through a church service.

Nothing particularly against Christianity, it just happens to be the religion I was brought up under.

You are basically in a version of purgatory. Where you are waiting to go one direction or another. You cannot make up your mind. Then, you are a perfect agnostic. Later in your life you may be able to choose which is more likely - then you'll be thiest or athiest. Of course, you'll never be able to prove it either way. But in your heart, you'll believe that most likely you are correct.

Originally posted by: E equals MC2
dullard, I don't know how my (or any agnostics') stance cannot be valid.

I didn't say your state isn't valid. But the definition that "an agnostic is someone that cannot prove god's existance" is an invalid definition. Sometimes you cannot make a decision - it is a big decision and that takes time. During this deciding phase you are agnostic. But after you decide, you are not agnostic.

In your agnostic phase, I highly suggest following my athiest belief system:
[*]Every day, make life for at least one other person better.
The joy you'll get from that belief system is very rewarding. It'll help you while you decide on one path or another.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dullard
No, a real agnostic is someone who is paralyzed in the thought process of which is more likely (god existing or got not existing).

Negative. You are assuming that a purely emotional decision can be justified through logic. It can't. Agnostics are not "paralyzed in the thought process of which is more likely," they simply don't allow their emotions to cloud their perception of reality. Hence (IMO) your use of ad hom and argumentum ad ignorantiam here. Simply because 2 warring camps of emotional prejudice exist does not mean that I (or anyone) am required to pick one of them.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Vic
Simply because 2 warring camps of emotional prejudice exist does not mean that I (or anyone) am required to pick one of them.

You are not required to pick one. But if you wrote down all of your reasons for either side (and weighted those reasons), then one side will outweigh the other for virtually all people (it'll be quite rare that the weighted reasons exactly balance). Therefore, even though you didn't conciously choose one side, your reasons are choosing one side as being more likely.

Simply, I've heard totalcommand's agnostic defintion before. It defines everyone in the world as being agnostic. Is that really a useful definition? I'm sick of it and I'm giving agnostic a useful definition.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

Thanks for your post. It brought a smile, reminded me of my own Christian days (I'm humoring myself.)

You are absolutely on the dot. This isn't something I concluded overnight. Being raised in a Christian family (My mother is a passionate Christian) and Christian community even throughout college, I can relate. I partok in leadership roles, teaching bible study, mission trips and so on throughout my middle school, HS and college years- and I shed genuine tears and professed love for my God. It is what helped me shaped who I am today.

And now I feel that I'm ready to discover more. I'm currently 24. In the past 3 years, I started to have doubts (in Christianity sense.) I took this very seriously and longed for better understanding of my own religion- Christianity.

I actually came back from a retreat just past saturday and engaged in a very insightful discussion with the church's pastor (who holds Harvard Ph.D in theology). We talked on and on about the point you just brought up...

To simply put, it all sound like a man made rule for me. The fact that "we have to have freewill so we can love him by choice, if not we go to hell etc" just sounds too.. human-made to me. I mean, if God is really an almighty God, why is there a need for such rule?

I hope you understand what I'm struggling with in such a short response.

yes, i understand, because i have also struggled with that exact same concept. putting a human-like attribute on a mental image of god seems wrong, but it is laid before you in the bible that there are choices. you have the choice to either seek god or refuse him all together - a binary system.

you have the choice to believe in god once you have begun to seek him or not believe and conclude he doesnt exist. every way you look at this, it will provide an opposite way to go. that is the whole point IMO. you have to be willing to see where you are going and why you are going there. blindly following an idea or concept will, in the end, do you no good. if you were having trouble with your faith, then discontinuing until you found out more was the right choice.

to me at least, it is clear that we are afforded freewill to make decisions which helps make us human. that is ultimately the biggest problem with being human - we can all see the same event/concept/idea completely differently, so it gives everyone the chance to make completely exclusive choices to how they perceived said event/concept/idea. the one thing that can unify all of humanity is our ability to make a choice. it seems to me to be an over arching theme that governs our everyday life in all ways. there is always a choice.

thus, i believe if god really existed, there would have to be an alternate choice. god is love, and if you believe in god it is natural to believe that. therefore, away from god is not love, and the manifestation of not love in a human world has translated into pain and suffering. it takes a lot of personal reflection to understand some of the hurt and pain in this world, some of which i still struggle with. but, i believe what i just said to be true and have found it applies in my life. i do my best each and everyday to live a kingdom life and walk with jesus. anyone can judge me and call me any name they want, because i see that they dont understand why i believe what i believe. i cant fault them for that as their life experience with other christians may have been very poor to say the least. i am severly dissappointed in modern churches and televangilsts making the world see christianity with a tainted eye. it just isnt consistent with the book they claim to follow.

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

Topic Title: This is what I think of religion.
Topic Summary: And I think I have the best stance.

1. Theists believe in a god although we cannot comprehend and logically prove that there is one. They're ignorant to conclude so.

I think you're an arsehole and have no clue what you're talking about and obviously no common sense whatsoever and no ability to observe reality and are really truly scared to death when you see that you were created by a God who can save you from Hell but you also realize that you have to repent of your sin so you'll never admit that you see the obvious truth. In other words, you're unbelievably stupid or unbelievably unobservant.

You think that of religion? That's what I think of you.

 

[E equals MC2]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: E equals MC2
Right, and agnostic currently suits what I'm currently going through. It's not merely a small window of doubt like you describe in your situation. Things genuinely bother me and it's gotten worse and worse when I sit through a church service.

Nothing particularly against Christianity, it just happens to be the religion I was brought up under.

You are basically in a version of purgatory. Where you are waiting to go one direction or another. You cannot make up your mind. Then, you are a perfect agnostic. Later in your life you may be able to choose which is more likely - then you'll be thiest or athiest. Of course, you'll never be able to prove it either way. But in your heart, you'll believe that most likely you are correct.

In your agnostic phase, I highly suggest following my athiest belief system:
[*]Every day, make life for at least one other person better.
The joy you'll get from that belief system is very rewarding. It'll help you while you decide on one path or another.

My basic gripe is this: Fundamentalists of any religion. They spend immense time and energy professing their love for their god and it start to create ignorance. People tend to categorize others as either Christians or NON-Christians. They point and say, "That person is gonna go to hell and I (or God, as they like to say) need to save them.

That was my particular example during Christianity days in my church and my church community. And I know as a fact that this isn't atypical experience for Christians.

Christianity by definition is exclusive. That's what I currently have the trouble with most. I do not see myself as confused because I clearly understand my own stance and acknowledge that atheists are just as guilty of it.

I hope my incoherent post makes sense. I had to write it up quick to catch up with the discussion.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dullard
No, a real agnostic is someone who is paralyzed in the thought process of which is more likely (god existing or got not existing).

Negative. You are assuming that a purely emotional decision can be justified through logic. It can't. Agnostics are not "paralyzed in the thought process of which is more likely," they simply don't allow their emotions to cloud their perception of reality. Hence (IMO) your use of ad hom and argumentum ad ignorantiam here. Simply because 2 warring camps of emotional prejudice exist does not mean that I (or anyone) am required to pick one of them.

this implies that to believe in god or not is purely an emotional concept, which itself is not true. your perception of truth makes you agnostic, and maybe your have a dirty lens. maybe i have been mislead as well, who is to know unless you are willing to understand all sides? there is no way for you to be sincere and claim you are absolutely right because you claim to use the best logic. that right there defies logic. i respect your right to disagree with my beliefs but at least be willing to discuss the notion that you could be incorrect, because claiming you have found absolute truth will never win an arguement. you cant persuade people to see your point - they have to understand through action and experience.