Let's all have a big fight over my mortal soul.

S.A.M. said:
When I hear complaints about religious evangelism from atheists I always look at their persistence in "educating" some of the theists and wonder why they complain.
Click to expand...

You've got me there.
All I can say is that some atheists on here are totally different form the ones I know in real life. Some seem to be about atheism, which is, to me, against the concept of atheism in the first place.
 
Enmos said:
You've got me there.
All I can say is that some atheists on here are totally different form the ones I know in real life. Some seem to be about atheism, which is, to me, against the concept of atheism in the first place.
Click to expand...

See? I have no problem having a discussion on beliefs with you. There are kooks on every side, stepping over everyone for the invisible future greater good. Unfortunately, they are too busy f*cking up the present to ever get there.
 
(Q) said:
Do you believe in magic?
Click to expand...
Let's say that I intuitively reject the possibility.

And this is what I'm struggling with: intuitive rejection backed up by... nothing at all. It's not satisfactory. Fill in the gaps.
 
We battle for ownership of others thoughts, we should be sooooo proud of ourselves. I won, i won, look at me i washed a brain.
 
redarmy11 said:
And this is what I'm struggling with: intuitive rejection backed up by... nothing at all. It's not satisfactory. Fill in the gaps.
Click to expand...

I hope that there are more options possible in this Universe than just either "reject" or "accept".

I hope there is some other option.
 
Sarkus said:
My mistake - apologies - I read into your description an implication that agnosticism and atheism couldn't cohabit, so to speak. I am not someone who holds them (atheism and agnosticism) to be positions on the same axis (a la Dawkins and his probability), but on two axis..es. One for belief in / belief not / non-belief, and one for the evidential side of the question (does it exist, is it knowable etc).
Hence I describe myself as an agnostic atheist.
Click to expand...

cool :)
 
God? yeah someone who is smarter than us\YOU...GOD FORBID.:rolleyes:

Well tell him i am on his side and will bang everyone on the head to show it.... That god is just so intellectual because that would surely be important..oh, sure.
 
S.A.M. said:
When I hear complaints about religious evangelism from atheists I always look at their persistence in "educating" some of the theists and wonder why they complain.
Click to expand...

this is tatamount to allowing an educational system that differs and is in conflict, run alongside another, already established one

exploiting and deepening the fissures in sciety is rather reprehensible. should we not be putting the"social" back in society?

but
sci and all that
the nitty gritty, so to speak...... what specifically are you comparing? on what basis do you do so?
 
VitalOne said:
No it doesn't, regular agnosticism claims that you don't know whether or not God eixsts, but that it could possibly be known

"AGNOSTIC Someone who claims that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists."

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml

Mild agnosticism (also called weak agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
Click to expand...

Looking back, I made an error in my assertion that "From your description, strong agnosticism and weak atheism appear to be one in the same" as any type of atheist makes no claim as to the non-knowability of a 'God'. The article you posted separates the agnostic positions even further and I found no equivalent to weak atheism.

The two fundamental differences between atheism and agnosticism are:

A) Agnosticism doesn't exclusively focus on 'God' and atheism does.
B) Weak and moderate atheism positively claim that the probability of a 'God' life-form existing is immensly small (strong atheism of course gives it zero probability); whereas, agnosticism issues no such claim of tiny probability.

Those differences are pretty big and offer a reasonable dilenation between the closest atheist and agnostic positions.
 
Gustav said:
this is tatamount to allowing an educational system that differs and is in conflict, run alongside another, already established one

exploiting and deepening the fissures in sciety is rather reprehensible. should we not be putting the"social" back in society?

but
sci and all that
the nitty gritty, so to speak...... what specifically are you comparing? on what basis do you do so?
Click to expand...


Assuming that atheism is an "educational system"? What does this classify as? Re-education?

(Q) said:
Religion is a disease spreading through the minds of people that has the capability to ultimately destroy mankind. "Curious and polite" should not be and usually are not characteristics when dealing with diseases.
Click to expand...
 
redarmy11 said:
I'm confused as to what the Third Way might be.. ?
Click to expand...

I don't know yet. But if the only two options are either reject or accept, then things seem completely hopeless to me.

As you've noticed, it's impossible to either accept or reject theist and atheist claims without thereby compromising your integrity.

If you accept a claim, however reasonable it might seem to accept it, there's always at least some room for doubt, always a gnawing thought that you have violated your own principles in doing so.

If you reject a claim, however reasonable it might seem to reject it, there's always at least some room for doubt, always a gnawing thought that you have violated your own principles in doing so.

So I'm wondering if there's a way to avoid this and to transcend it.
 
S.A.M. said:
Why would you need other people to tell you what to believe?
Click to expand...

Because what we usually consider to be our "self", is actually directly and indirectly made up of what other people have said about us or to us.
A self exists only in direct or indirect relation to others.

Hence we look for answers elsewhere.
 
S.A.M. said:
See? I have no problem having a discussion on beliefs with you.
Click to expand...
I know SAM :)

S.A.M. said:
There are kooks on every side, stepping over everyone for the invisible future greater good. Unfortunately, they are too busy f*cking up the present to ever get there.
Click to expand...
Yes there are 'kooks' on every side, as I've said before.
I rarely attack atheism in general. I may have done so occasionally though and that was, admittedly, childish retribution towards a person (not theism).
I 'attack' VitalOne not because he is a theist, but because of his behavior. I think that's quite clear.
 
greenberg said:
I don't know yet. But if the only two options are either reject or accept, then things seem completely hopeless to me.

As you've noticed, it's impossible to either accept or reject theist and atheist claims without thereby compromising your integrity.

If you accept a claim, however reasonable it might seem to accept it, there's always at least some room for doubt, always a gnawing thought that you have violated your own principles in doing so.

If you reject a claim, however reasonable it might seem to reject it, there's always at least some room for doubt, always a gnawing thought that you have violated your own principles in doing so.

So I'm wondering if there's a way to avoid this and to transcend it.
Click to expand...
Beautifully put. Let me know if you find any answers. Fellow wanderer.

I should add that I'm also wary of the admonition: "Keep an open mind - but not so open that your brain falls out."

I feel a strong obligation to assume a position. Oh, me. :(
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top