Theists: Could you be wrong?

[birch]

Conversely, someone who does not have the desire to control others in some more or less gross or subtle way (ie. someone who does not seek safety in this world and/or by their own effort) will not feel threatened by other people's proclamations of certainty.

usual bs. this can go either way. those who have certainty can also seek to control others in their own way. this is one of the reasons why people try to get others to convert or see things their way. this is why they can be uneasy especially if they view it as possibly infringing on their rights or gaining too much power to push them in the minority. if a religion had enough power to politicize their beliefs, they may use their 'certainty' against others. one example could be that gay marriage is immoral, therefore should be illegal or that gays should be shunned etc. the opposition is not always trying to control, the motive can be to resist control which can require opposing this 'certainty'. it depends.

i wonder if you ever think about things before you post.

 

[lightgigantic]

Agnostic is not related to the other two terms.

How so?

It is the degree that someone thinks knowledge of a subject can be known. And given that, new knowledge could change someone who was agnostic of something.

Hence the moment one accepts a new set of values is the moment that one accepts a new designation, regardless whether one is talking about theism, atheism or agnosticism.

IOW its not so much about new information entering a paradigm but a new paradigm.

Now you could be an agnostic theist, believe but think that there's no way to substantiate that belief. But you could still answer the OP question either way.

You could?

 

[Rhaedas]

How so?

The definition of 'agnostic'.

Hence the moment one accepts a new set of values is the moment that one accepts a new designation, regardless whether one is talking about theism, atheism or agnosticism.

IOW its not so much about new information entering a paradigm but a new paradigm.

And the topic at hand is how unwavering you are in your belief.

You could?

Yes. Given your belief and how certain you are of it, would new information sway your opinion, or not? It's really a simple question.

 

[lightgigantic]

The definition of 'agnostic'.

which is?

And the topic at hand is how unwavering you are in your belief.

or you in yours.
Such is the nature of identifying with a paradigm.

Yes. Given your belief and how certain you are of it, would new information sway your opinion, or not? It's really a simple question.

Only to the degree that it shifts a paradigm - which is generally a tall order since its the nature of a paradigm to perceive, retrieve, process and forget information.

 

[Rhaedas]

which is?

Given to you already above.

or you in yours.
Such is the nature of identifying with a paradigm.

I'm open to changing my opinion given new information. Again, are theists the same way?

Only to the degree that it shifts a paradigm - which is generally a tall order since its the nature of a paradigm to perceive, retrieve, process and forget information.

Make it sound complicated. If you don't want to answer the question, then don't.

 

[lightgigantic]

Given to you already above.

but it doesn't really establish how it is independent of the other two terms

I'm open to changing my opinion given new information. Again, are theists the same way?

Given that its the nature of opinions to perceive, retrieve, process and forget information, the information has a lot to get through

Make it sound complicated. If you don't want to answer the question, then don't.

The answer to the question is that an identification as a theist/atheist/agnostic is an identification with the very means of dealing with information

 

[420Joey]

Inherited belief systems differ, not the modest quest of understanding what we percieve as reality, obviously these terms "athiest and thiest" are devoid in meaning when it comes to science especially without any factual data to support the claims. So if you claim to be scientific, than your almost certaintly claiming to be an agnostic unless you are clueless and draw conclusions out of your ass.

Obviously athiests could be wrong like theists could be. It all boils down to perspective and how you view the world. Your either an optimist or not. People have to independently filter there own reality and decide what is real and what isnt. I kindof hope that reality is so complex that the people who "believe" in the after life, god and the like who believes in the "abstract concept of the soul" gets it to materialize while the others repopulate the earth as plant food and insects.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Inherited belief systems differ, not the modest quest of understanding what we percieve as reality, obviously these terms "athiest and thiest" are devoid in meaning when it comes to science especially without any factual data to support the claims

So what? How are they "devoid" of meaning?

So if you claim to be scientific, than your almost certaintly claiming to be an agnostic unless you are clueless and draw conclusions out of your ass.

Strange conclusion. Ever heard of Lionel Fanthorpe? While science tends to make one an atheist it's not always the case. Nor is required to be pro-science before one becomes an atheist.
I'm an atheist.

Obviously athiests could be wrong like theists could be. It all boils down to perspective and how you view the world. Your either an optimist or not.

No, it's not a question of "optimism".

People have to independently filter there own reality and decide what is real and what isnt.

Only to a very limited extent.

 

[chimpkin]

Gods.(And Goddesses. Including the Parking spot goddess, praised be her name by those who want a good Spot. And Neuters, and Hermaphrodites....and rocks. And rivers.)

But how could I be 100% sure of their existence? I'm not 100% sure of my own!

What is the purpose of life, while you're at it, since one of the things I worship is Life?

I don't think it has one other than to happen.

 

[420Joey]

Science does not validate a conclusion from a "thiest" or an "athiest", Dwy. That is what I am saying. You saying god does not exist is no more sound than me stating that god must exist. We obviously do not know.

Alot of scientests believe in the concept of god. Quantum physics illustrates how unpredictable science can be. Surely you can agree that there are principles beyond our understanding in quantum physics. There are plenty of elements in our existance that supports the idea of god. If you are content with the big bang, your questions subdued, why go out of the way to attack the feelings some people have about a more powerful awareness. Has it ever occured to you that there might be people that are seeking a purpose driven by some awareness, that some people might have some raw emotion or awareness of god that isnt bounded by our inherited rationale (it doesent always have to be culture driven), in the end, who are "athiests", who are "thiests" and why should we care.

The only rationale people IMO are agnostics seeking and weighing out facts w philosphy and thats the truth.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The only rationale people IMO are agnostics seeking and weighing out facts w philosphy and thats the truth.

Why?
How does an agnostic live?

Being a theist or atheist is not about proclaiming oneself to be.
It's about how you live your life.

jan.

 

[wynn]

usual bs. this can go either way. those who have certainty can also seek to control others in their own way. this is one of the reasons why people try to get others to convert or see things their way. this is why they can be uneasy especially if they view it as possibly infringing on their rights or gaining too much power to push them in the minority. if a religion had enough power to politicize their beliefs, they may use their 'certainty' against others. one example could be that gay marriage is immoral, therefore should be illegal or that gays should be shunned etc. the opposition is not always trying to control, the motive can be to resist control which can require opposing this 'certainty'. it depends.

i wonder if you ever think about things before you post.

Them monsters, birch, them monsters!

 

[wynn]

I'm open to changing my opinion given new information.

Empirical evidence would be required here of how you have changed your opinion given new information.

There would have to be good reason to believe that a person is indeed open to changing their opinion, and isn't merely saying so because it is a trend deemed progressive in some social circles and they wish to preserve their self-image in those circles.

Again, are theists the same way?

Why single out theists? Developmental psychologists like Kohlberg even maintain that a person cannot even understand a moral argument that is made on a higher level of reasoning than their own, what to speak of changing their opinion.

Make it sound complicated.

Not at all. There simply are many factors required for a person to change their stance on something.