Just had to take issue with the part I bolded. You can't put a slash between the two terms and treat them like they represent a single position.
I put a slash as an "or" as in atheist, agnostic and religious people. I wasn't trying to say they represent the same thing, just lazy typing.
And sorry Cheese you can't claim to know I'm definetly a Agnostic. Even from your link:
Quote:
In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify knowledge of whether God exists or does not.
I don't believe that, I believe that there could be an answer out there that we may find one day. I'm not saying it will never happen.
However in saying that I might be closer to a agnostic atheist:
Quote:
Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that).
But in reality it is nothing more than a title, whether I call myself an atheist, agnostic or theist I still don't have the answers to make myself happy with calling myself one thing or another as I feel that my feelings could change at any time depending on the evidence shown to me personally, not what I read in some book.
This does make me wonder why it is so important to put a title to anything though.
I feel that my feelings could change at any time depending on the evidence shown to me personally, not what I read in some book.
How is that different from atheism, exactly? What you said in the quote above describes my religious views perfectly, and I certainly identify as an atheist. If irrefutable evidence for a god was ever produced, I'd immediately change my beliefs. In the meantime, I accept the fact that I don't have all the answers but based on the available evidence, the possibility of a deity existing is very small.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
Agnostics try to decide between this and that, I believe there are other choices than this and that. Agnostics ends with the lack of answers and say it's impossible to answer where I believe there must be better questions to get a true answer of the truth and the lack of answers is the start, not the end of the discussion.
Maybe I fall into a little bit of everything to be honest. But I beleive Agnostics are bound by their ignorance of having to decide between one or another, where I feel I'm unsure because of the limited knowledge on all fronts.
I feel I do everything I can to be a good person and do the right thing so if it came down to me dying and not getting into heaven because I didn't believe in a certain god, than so be it, I wouldn't want to be part of it anyways.
I think part of the problem is that a lot of those of us in the middle ground have gotten to our viewpoint through our own very personal questions and experiences, and it feels that a unique path must arrive at a unique perspective. I've never met another person who I am going to agree with 100% on these sorts of theological questions, but that doesn't mean that my viewpoint exist outside of pre-existing labels.
Agnosticism is a bit of a middle-ground catchall, and I know that if I define myself as agnostic, it gives someone I'm talking to an approximate idea of where my beliefs fit (assuming they correctly understand the term), in that I don't claim knowledge about God one way or another. But I would need to further define exactly where, within the vast territory of agnosticism I fit, something I would choose not to get into under normal circumstances.
Your characterization of agnosticism here is inaccurate: agnosticism suggests a lack of confidence in existing answers to the Existence of God question, but makes no generalization about what the correct answer is, what form the answer will take, whether the question is answerable, whether the question is meaningful, or even whether the right question is being asked. Some agnostics might believe that the answer must be 'this or that', as you put it, but is probably uncommon. Personally, I've never talked with an agnostic who has put forth such a proposition.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
I don't believe that, I believe that there could be an answer out there that we may find one day. I'm not saying it will never happen.
Heh, that's why there's a differentiation between weak agnosticism (which is what you are saying, that I don't know know, but there might be something we find one day) and strong agnosticism (that the question is inherently unanswerable).
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I've never met another person who I am going to agree with 100% on these sorts of theological questions, but that doesn't mean that my viewpoint exist outside of pre-existing labels.
Hoenstly I think it is coming down to me being picky and not wanting to lump myself in a belief system set out already. I feel I believe in some of that, some of this and little bit of another. So by labelling myself one way or another is not my true feelings which I think is the(my) problem. Either way it doesn't matter in the big picture, I believe what I want to just like everyone else.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hilch For This Useful Post:
Some other interesting tidbits:
-almost half believe in the theory that the Earth is 6000 years old.
-74% believe that Adam and Eve were real people ie. they believe in the Book of Genesis literally
I take no issue with faith but surely it must be reconciled with the overwhelming evidence of science rather than ignoring it completely.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
We now know that the human race is 100 to 200 thousand years old. For all of that time people have been inventing better ways of living, and spreading around the world. They have been developing fire, art, music, wheels, levers, tools and . . . religions. Not just one religion but thousands of them.
For all that time humanity has faced disease, earthquakes, volcanoes, predators and no doubt temptation.
Heaven looked on, unconcerned.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
I'm not sure if this belongs in this thread but a recent survey indicates that 7 out of 10 pastors in the US do not believe in evolution.
I was ready to write an "I'm shocked" post, but it's not 7 out of 10 pastors, but 7 out of 10 Protestant pastors, which is actually better than I'd have expected.
That they're split on a 6,000 year old earth is actually a but surprising in a good way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
I take no issue with faith but surely it must be reconciled with the overwhelming evidence of science rather than ignoring it completely.
But that's not how most people form or evaluate their beliefs, and neuroscience tells us over and over that the strength of a held belief often increases in the light of contrary evidence rather than decreases.
As much as I like debating such issues, unless the other person can honestly answer the question "what evidence would change your mind" with something specific, they're not ready or willing to change their belief. And that willingness to change in itself is something that doesn't come naturally.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Hell, I like to look at it this way. Around 150 years ago, that number would have been 10 out of 10 pastors do not believe humans evolved. (Or, in this case, that God created people through evolution.) 3 out of 10 is progress, baby! Progress just takes awhile . . . right? Right?
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
Last edited by HPLovecraft; 01-10-2012 at 07:53 PM.
Jessica Alhquist is a 16yr old who took her school to court over a banner with a prayer on it which has been a part of the school for decades. ACLU took up the case and just this week they won the case.
Jessica Alhquist is a 16yr old who took her school to court over a banner with a prayer on it which has been a part of the school for decades. ACLU took up the case and just this week they won the case.
Also, a pretty antagonistic thing for her to do. The best way to get people to show their love and charity is to crap all over something they have a devotion to. Right.
BTW, nice straw man. I'd be pretty sure that the majority of responses aren't motivated by religion, but by school spirit and representing one's school. Even amongst those cherry picked responses, that's what I saw. Even so, I doubt I could convince you of that.
Also, a pretty antagonistic thing for her to do. The best way to get people to show their love and charity is to crap all over something they have a devotion to.
Standing up for her constitutional rights -- and yes, she is most definitely in the right here as determined by many different cases -- is not "crapping all over something they have a devotion to".
The school was in the wrong to place religious text like that on government property; the students were in the wrong for bullying the girl for asking that it be removed. The girl did nothing wrong.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
Jessica Alhquist is a 16yr old who took her school to court over a banner with a prayer on it which has been a part of the school for decades. ACLU took up the case and just this week they won the case.
She was offended by a banner. Her peers are offended by her actions. She is the snotty nosed kid that is always running to an authority to get her way. She took her school to court. She cost her school money. For what? To force the school to cater to her intolerance.
People who act like this shouldn't expect that once they've forced there will on others that they will love them for it. The responses those teens gave might not have been christian but, they were certainly human.
