Religeous Two Week Fire Gap

That is not agreed. It is not agreed by the dictionaries I have consulted. It is not agreed by the google sources I have consulted. It is not agreed by the majority of your fellow posters in this thread. It is not agreed by me.

Any reasonable person would recognise the validity of these other views, and cease using the word. Instead of which you wilfully continue, causing confusion. Further, you adopt an aggressive tone, labelling us as wrong, introducing personal "victimhood" issues and effectively derailing one of the most interesting and enjoyable threads I have seen for some time for the sake of these personal issues.

It's not worthy of you. Please stop. And stop telling us you are right and we are wrong. Look at the web. Look in a few dictionaries. The meaning of this word is not unambiguously what you say it is, and you cannot force us to submit to your choice of definition by using bullying language.

You should not be even trying.

But by describing themselves as a Christian, they are specifying MAJOR aspects of their beliefs.. namely, that they believe Jesus Christ is the son of God, and he died for our sins, and Abhraham had a deal with God, and so did moses, yadda yadda yadda.

In all honesty, the real comparison that could be made, if you followed your train of thought, would be not someone who says they were a chrystian, but someone who said they were a Theist.

Have you ever heard anyone describe their belief like that? I haven't.. Because to do so would be imprecise. It makes you ask, "Well, what particular theistic religion do you belong to?"

Let me ask you then, if God came to you and said "Kendra, I'm giving you a choice, there are 2 places to be for eternity, heaven and hell, what do you prefer?" Would you choose heaven? If so why? If not, why not?

On the contrary, you actually didn't understand what he meant... you thought he believed the same thing as you.

There's no need to split hairs like that with atheism. There are only two kinds, and the vast majority of them are agnostic atheists. If someone tells you they're an atheist and doesn't elaborate, you can assume they're an agnostic atheist. I realize that goes against what most people believe about atheists, but that's their problem.

This very thread would seem to disprove that...

If you assumed that Jonquille Noir was an agnostic atheist, then you would be wrong.

Atheists, amongst themselves, really don't give a shit why other atheists don't believe in a god or gods. The only imporant thing is that they're not theists.

Edit to add: The only people who care are theists and people who call themselves "agnostic" as they fall all over themselves to avoid the stigma attached to the word "atheist."

Also, calling myself agnostic makes it clear what believe, which is the purpose of language.

I'd tell "God" to stop smoking crack, as I'll no doubt become worm-food like everyone else.

Then I'd ask "God" if he's so darned omniscient, he'd:

1) know my answer already

2) Call me Madeleine, as Kendra is the name of my avatar and not my real name.

My two pennorth on hell.

No-one external to yourself ever can or ever will send you to even loneliness or darkness, let alone flames.

But imagine that on your 70th birthday you are invited to a party. Everybody you have ever interacted with will be there. And everyone of them will have instant access to your secret thoughts whilst that interaction was taking place, your hidden motives, your plans.

There is no judgement involved. You will see them equally clearly. There will be reminiscences and laughter and reconciliations. Absolute love and forgiveness and welcome is guaranteed.

Would you go ?

Or do you feel so guilty and humiliated by the way you have behaved that you turn and run for the outer dark? Does the forgiveness sting, and add to the impossibility of accepting the invitation?

That is the only sense in which a judgement exists. The judgement is your own, in humiliation, embarassment and resentment at discovering that what you thought was secret and hidden actually never was.

They will call to you from the gorgeous glowing lights of the party, beg you to not be so silly, point out that many of them were as bad. List for you your extenuating circumstances. But if that only makes things worse, increases your resentment and sense of humiliation and betrayal. Then you are a candidate for a bit of outer darkness skulking until you see sense, and forgive yourself.

Maybe in the history of existence a few absolutely determined souls have been so maniacally bent on self-punishment that they have believed themselves into fiery flames, but it would take a huge effort of will, beyond the capability of ordinary folk.

And if it hurt enough you'd pretty soon begin to feel adequately justified, and pop off to the party welcome.

This is the truth of it. All that these morality religions are trying to do is to protect you from the consequences of your own feelings of guilt, embarassment, and self-loathing, or even resentment at unexpected total discovery. At the inevitability of looking your forgiving victim in the eye. Don't you know yet who he is ?

You have been told. There are two solutions. Either behave such that you can enter that party door, when the time comes, with head held high. Or practice at every opportunity forgiveness of others. So that you in your turn will feel able to accept forgiveness yourself. Judge not others in this world, that you judge not yourself at entry to the next.

Here endeth the lesson according to Ellie.

Ellie is very wise.

The discussion concerning the terms began when it was suggested atheists believe in something by faith. Chip clearified his meaning of atheist to mean the default position is non-belief until suitable evidence proves the default position wrong.

The problem was there were two groups of atheists under his deffintion, he called them weak atheists (agnostics to me) and strong atheists (atheists to me).

He explained he is a weak atheist (one who has not rules out the possibility of God) who doesn't have faith either way.

So, when we are talking about what it means to be an atheist must be further explained, so we can tell if one is a faithful atheist or not.

Maybe we could call those who believe there is no God (the strong atheists) "faithful atheists" so it's more clear.

To me it makes you no different than a black person who paints themselves white in an effort to avoid persection. I'm not saying you do it with that conscious intent, but I believe strongly that the practice of people calling themselves agnostic as if it were not atheism has that motive at its core. I find it offensive and an affront to all those who have the courage to defy persecution instead of evade it. To each their own. You are, in fact, an atheist. I apologize if I sound overly combative. This is something that I feel very strongly about.

Exactly my belief. And for my own part, I further believe that through Jesus is not the only way, but one of many ways.

coco

I've edited out the intolerant attack from this thread. Please refrain from attacking personally or intolerantly those who hold different opinions than you do.

Ok, how is someone who declares they are agnostic in order to say they are uncertain if God exists or not (neither side has made a compelling case) the same as someone trying to pass for white? That is quite a stretch, Chip. You have declared that you absolutely believe there is no God. Someone saying they are uncertain if there is or is not a God is not the same stance as yours. It is not splitting hairs, it is a different belief, as different as it also is from someone who states absolutely that they believe in God. Why are you going to such extraordinary lengths to claim they are the same thing, when they are not?

I always thought an agnostic was one who believed there was something like a God out there, but they couldn't decide between existing religions. I would not call these people atheist, and I thought most people calling themselves agnostics were like this. You seem to be suggesting that a majority of people that call themselves agnostic actually believe firmly there is no God. I think if they believe flat out that there is no God and they are calling themselves agnostic, then yes they are actually atheist. I'm not sure I've met many doing this.

I myself would consider myself an atheist agnostic. I believe there is no God, but I have a small grain of doubt in this assumption. If there is a God, the ones I've read about seem like tyrants to be resisted. So a small part of me believes that there is an improbable possibility there is a God, but I would never follow any religion if there was one.

Without following all the ins and outs of this sub-topic, here's my take on it:

Agnostic: Doesn't know whether there is a God or not. Isn't convinced there is, and isn't convinced there isn't. (My mother.)

Atheist: Is certain there is no God. Believes there is no God. "Knows" there is no God. (However you want to put it.) There is no scientific basis for believing there is a God, or any scientific reason to believe there must be a god; while there is a lot of psychological explanation of why people have historically felt a need for there to be a god. (My brother).

Theists, or religious people: Believes there is a God. Believes "in" God. May "know" for sure there is a God (me and others), or may not "know" for sure there is a God, but "believes" there is a God, and uses that belief (and hope) as a working basis (others).

Regardless of stigma associated with the term "atheist," if you are certain (or at least quite certain, for all practical purposes) that there is no God, then you are an atheist.

If you, like my mother, spend your life not being able to decide, then you are an agnostic. (Probably the most scientific among us.)

Madeline Murray O'Hare was definitely an atheist, certain there was no God. The Pope is definitely a theist. I am a theist.

My mother still isn't sure what to believe, but has had herself baptized for me and my kids, and to just . . . you know, take the precaution. As I have watched her over my lifetime, though, I know that she is actually, fundamentally, more of a theist than an agnostic, but just doesn't like organized religion.

My brother died as staunch an atheist as Madeline Murray O'Hare. My brother definitely does not rot in hell. I "know" this, or at least hope fervently that I do know it, lol, as surely as I am certain that I "know" there is a God. I think Elle has a pretty good outlook on the whole hell thing.

End of my take on the semantics of it all.

coco

You don't have to believe firmly there is no god to be an atheist. Anyone who is not a theist is an atheist. I don't know how many times I have to explain that. It's pure common sense.

Cris, it is not at all a stretch. Atheists are the most marginalized and persecuted minority on the planet. They remain that way because so called "agnostics" who are not convinced there is a god, all of whom are atheists, refuse to stand up. Now if all of those people are atheists, why do so few call themselves atheists? hmmmmmm, I wonder. There are only two possible reasons... one, they don't know any better, or two, they don't want to be associated with the stigma of atheism. Chances are if they do it because of the first reason, they learned the practice from someone else because of the second reason.

People can squirm around the issue all they like, but there is no middle ground between theism and atheism. You are either convinced there is a god, or not. How anyone can refute that is beyond my meager cognitive abilities. To the question "do you believe there is a god" the only possible answers are yes and no. "I don't know" is still no. "I haven't decided" is still no. "Not yet" is still no. All of those answers preclude theism, and all who are not theists are atheists. The qualifiers are beside the point.

In my strongly held opinion, anyone who denies the above, who is not convinced there is a god, is in denial or is afraid.

I think the real discussion points were dodged long ago.



Kevn truly had to demonstrate that 10^50 statistic has meaning, and engage Ulrika's questions regarding natural selection in a meaningful way.

And show how 10^50 *must* be the odds, refute Ulrika's questions or surrender the point.

Then we could talk about abiogenesis, sure.



For the atheists:

Chip, for whatever it's worth, the semantics argument is understood &c.

But the slogan of the day is wrong.

What we have here is the case of a garage somehow spawning visible dragons: ourselves. And the garage also spawned itself too, or is some eternal structure the likes of nothing we have ever observed in nature. What of this!?

Disbelief is a default position, sure. But unless you have nothing to add to the discussion, where would *you* say that about 10^44 odd bits of matter came from?



An open question. Any idea? From anyone *not* a theist?

Anything? Wild guess, even?

Religious people do not corner the market on all ideas that sound fantastic. Likely the truth is fantastic, and quite disbelievable at first blush, *whatever* it may be.


- Desmond Shang

He knows the answer, doyou?

The choices are Heaven or hell, for eternity. I'd say your answer is a cop-out.

Is it that hard to search within for the answer to the big question. Yes to heaven if you so choose, or no to heaven, and why....

Well, Chip, having lived in close proximity with an agnostic my whole life, I would have to disagree with you on this. And so would my mother. She would reject the notion of being an atheist, just as she rejects the notion of actually believing in god.

The fact that the word happens to be "theist" and you put an "a" in front of it to form the word "atheist" by no means invalidates the range of opinions and beliefs in between, of which the most useful (and most used) subcategory of these distinctions is "agnostic."

Theist - theist = believes in God.

Atheist - theist plus "a", or "anti" = doesn't believe in God.

Agnostic -

[list=1]
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
   
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
   
[/list]

3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
   

So, that is how I see it. And those definitions are what my family used in discussing it.

coco

P.S. I don't think I am either in denial or afraid.

But I don't believe that there is no God... Because those people are fostering irrational beliefs.

So, you're certainly right that I don't want to be associated with that belief structure. Because it makes no sense.


But this is why your odd little analogy doesn't work. You see, if I was black and painted myself black, I would actually BE black, and trying to hide it. I don't believe that I can know there is no God, so I can't be trying to hide that belief. You see, I'm not trying to hide from persecution... because there's no reason for people to persecute me (unless they actually disagree with my beliefs).

Why exactly should I seek out persecution for beliefs that are not mine? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Here's my answer.

I already exist in heaven. It's here on this earth and in my life.
Other people choose to live in hell on this earth.

Eternity exists only in the now.

When I die, I die. I will cease to exist. I'm good with that.
I don't believe in a "God". I don't believe in an "afterlife".

In short, your question is (to me) absurd.

I would say "I don't know" and not feel compelled to invent an explanation to try and distance myself from not knowing.

When I look at something like the big bang theory, I don't see a faith based assertion of "this is exactly what happened. Case closed." I see a very out of focus picture of what the event looked like based on what we can observe. I don't see an answer to what exactly it was or why exactly it happened, and I'm prefectly fine with that. We will learn more and our picture will come more in to focus, perhaps eventually revealing the what and why. This applies to all such mysteries, like the origin of life. I am certain that if we ever do find satisfactory answers for the really hard questions, it will be the result of science.