Thread: A poll

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

Wait wait wait...you guys have eradicated the majority of the Christians here? I LOVE YOU!

This isn't a good thing. Opposing views shouldn't be forced out.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

This isn't a good thing. Opposing views shouldn't be forced out.

This very much. It's sad because the christians can't actively participate in discussions without getting thrashed and looked down upon (Erm.. Noogah.), so they stop all together. If all religions stop, the whole R/S forum will just be
"Hai guyz I don't believe in god"
"Me neither lolz"
"Christians r stoopid lolz"
"I agree haha."

I do agree with UM though, that some of the christians we've had have left to avoid having to admit they don't have a good answer to some of the questions that have been asked of them. I'd like to see some christians that have the ability to be self critical join the forum and participate here in R/S.

Xaq, that's an oxymoron!! If a christian is self-critical, then he wouldn't be a christian!

Obviously I'm an atheist. At times I used to describe myself as agnostic, but when I really looked into it, I realized religion just cant stand up to honest scrutiny. Then I became a wishy-washy atheist... you know.... "there's no reason to confront religious people with critical thinking that will only hurt their feelings..."

But somewhere along the way - without knowing yet what it was called or that there even was such a thing -- I became a proponent of the New Atheism, expounded by Richard Dawkins and a few others, which holds that belief in God can no longer be defended on rational or empirical grounds, and that the scientific worldview has rendered obsolete the traditional beliefs held by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It's necessary for atheists to start to stand up for themselves as other minorities have done before them, and make it known that in no other important sphere of human endeavor is irrationality tolerated when people's welfare and lives are at stake, but for whatever reason religion gets a free pass. This doesn't mean I advocate a warlike or unnecessarily aggressive approach, but I think it's important for atheists to make their voices heard and spread the word of rationality and critical thinking.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Xaq, that's an oxymoron!! If a christian is self-critical, then he wouldn't be a christian!

Not true. All that is required to be a christian is to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Someone could reject the majority of the bible and still call him/herself a christian. I have met many christians that recognize that a lot of meaning has been lost in the bible over thousands of years of alterations, deletions, revisions, and translations. I have met some christians that don't even necessarily believe that Jesus existed at all, but still believe that his ideals are good ones to live by. Love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek are still strong pillars to base ones actions on no matter the circumstances behind their invention/discovery.

Ok, you got me. It was a bad joke really. Yes, completely agreed... the teachings of Christ are excellent. Most christians however go farther and claim they believe in an almighty God. And therein lies the problem.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I have met some christians that don't even necessarily believe that Jesus existed at all

Wow, that's really going the distance. Even archeologists and scientists believe that Jesus at least existed. He was mortal and not special in any way, but he existed.

Actually many historians believe he was largely if not entirely mythical. There was a historian who lived in Nazareth (or was it Galilee... curse my sievelike memory! ) who lived during the entirety of Jesus' recored life, and wrote about all the important happenings in the area, who never mentioned Jesus at all. Weird if any of the biblical stories concerning him are really true.

Ok, here's the statement:

As I keep saying,
absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the evidence should be there
and is not. In the case of Jesus, there were several historians living in or near
Judea at the time who reported on all kinds of events there, but never mention
Christ.
One example is Philo-Judaeus, also known as Philo of Alexandria. In The
Christ, John E. Remsberg writes:
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived
long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the
Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on
earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous
birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when
Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem He was there when
the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural
darkness and resurrection of the dead tool place—when Christ
himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses
ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have
filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were
unknown to him.

Taken from The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason by
Victor J. Stenger

i'm hopeful.

What do agnostics believe in, in relation to atheism or theism? Is there any atheist here who doesn't subscribe to an agnostic philosophy? Either you believe in something or you don't. In either case you can be an agnostic.

I'm atheist.

Bonsay, agnostic is the most logical way to go, true, but agnosticism also shows cowardice in my eyes. You are afraid to believe in atleast something. I believe that our world is real.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Why do you hate me so much, Xaqaria?

You barely know me. I'm not looking for a fight. I'm just sick of people trying to be superior. Don't questions my actions if you don't know my motives.

How can you say this, when you in your next post say that you are criticising people for trying to be superior? You don't know their motives either and you could be completely in the wrong.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It seems like the flaming never messed with them anywhere near as much as the stumping. They would complain about the flaming some, but getting backed into corners with questions they could not answer always happened immediately before long and permanent departures.

Flaming was the wrong word. Your right, it's more that they were bombarded with the truth. I always find it hilarious. There'll be 1 christian giving some kind of an opinion that's mostly based on dogma and 8 atheist just pounce on them. Just tearing their ideas to shreds.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Bonsay, agnostic is the most logical way to go, true, but agnosticism also shows cowardice in my eyes. You are afraid to believe in atleast something. I believe that our world is real.

Isn't an agnostic just an atheist without balls?
~Stephen Colbert

How can you say this, when you in your next post say that you are criticising people for trying to be superior? You don't know their motives either and you could be completely in the wrong.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Flaming was the wrong word. Your right, it's more that they were bombarded with the truth. I always find it hilarious. There'll be 1 christian giving some kind of an opinion that's mostly based on dogma and 8 atheist just pounce on them. Just tearing their ideas to shreds.

That's the fun of R/S! ^_^

Originally Posted by Marvo

Bonsay, agnostic is the most logical way to go, true, but agnosticism also shows cowardice in my eyes. You are afraid to believe in atleast something. I believe that our world is real.

Why is it cowardice to admit you don't know something? Deluding yourself that something is real is closer to cowardice. Whether it is "the world is real" or that "Jesus is real". With the scientific method we can define the real world. But it can also bring us to a conclusion that, being a part of the real world, we might not be percieving the "real" real... wherther we are talking about dreams, hallucinations or some other scenario/view which changes our perception of existence. I'm not saying that we should all become some hard core solipsists absorbed in ourselves. It's just that without some sort of an "agnostic element" being atheist is on the same level as being a fundamentalist believer. The reason I am atheist is because I wasn't proven God's existence, not because I believe his non-existence is just some absolute fact. So until I'm proven his existence absolutely, I can only honestly remain agnostic about it.

How many atheists can honestly say that they have absolute knowledge; that there aren't billions of invisible Russel's teapots floating aorund etc.? I've heard people honestly say that they know definitely that God exists, but I've also heard people honestly say that they know definitely that God doesn't, with equally unsatisfying proof from both sides.

Originally Posted by Thomas Henry Huxley

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

The point of my original post wasn't about this though. Agnosticism isn't a statement of belief. It's a statement of knowledge. You can call yourself a Buddhist, Christian, whatever and still be agnostic (although finding excuses for being both is your own problem, if your belief should be regarded as an absolute truth for example). So I don't see why it's added in the mix of choices. Sorry for being so pedantic.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Why is it cowardice to admit you don't know something? Deluding yourself that something is real is closer to cowardice. Whether it is "the world is real" or that "Jesus is real". With the scientific method we can define the real world. But it can also bring us to a conclusion that, being a part of the real world, we might not be percieving the "real" real... wherther we are talking about dreams, hallucinations or some other scenario/view which changes our perception of existence. I'm not saying that we should all become some hard core solipsists absorbed in ourselves. It's just that without some sort of an "agnostic element" being atheist is on the same level as being a fundamentalist believer. The reason I am atheist is because I wasn't proven God's existence, not because I believe his non-existence is just some absolute fact. So until I'm proven his existence absolutely, I can only honestly remain agnostic about it.

How many atheists can honestly say that they have absolute knowledge; that there aren't billions of invisible Russel's teapots floating aorund etc.? I've heard people honestly say that they know definitely that God exists, but I've also heard people honestly say that they know definitely that God doesn't, with equally unsatisfying proof from both sides.

You are right when you look at it from that point of view.

What I meant when I said that it showed cowardice, is that people are afraid to take that leap of faith that it requires, to be either an atheist, a theist or a non-theist. You are afraid to become just that little bit of illogical that it requires to be anything but agnostic.

Whether that actually shows fear or not, I don't know.

Regarding the entire "something is there that we can't detect in any way, at all" element, sure, there could be something, but if we can't detect it, that means it can't influence our universe. Thus it becomes pointless.

Originally Posted by Marvo

You are right when you look at it from that point of view.

What I meant when I said that it showed cowardice, is that people are afraid to take that leap of faith that it requires, to be either an atheist, a theist or a non-theist. You are afraid to become just that little bit of illogical that it requires to be anything but agnostic.

Whether that actually shows fear or not, I don't know.

Regarding the entire "something is there that we can't detect in any way, at all" element, sure, there could be something, but if we can't detect it, that means it can't influence our universe. Thus it becomes pointless.

It has nothing to do with fear. I don't see how an agnostic philosophy of admitting that you don't know "anything" could stem from fear. And about fear of being illogical... I think you're misusing it now. It's not that I'm afraid of being wrong or illogical. It's a state of frustration if I'm being illogical. It's a psychological imbalance that can be mended by thinking, which is something I just do. So I don't delude myself if I find a philosophical problem. Unless my logic curcuits are broken, then I can't be illogical, as arogant as it may sound. And I don't see how such a feat - of consciously being illogical - would be seen as courageous as opposed to my current "cowardly" state of agnosticism. If we have to this home-psychoanalysis, lets just say I have different values and a different view on life. I'm still an atheist in every way, I just don't find agnosticism something you should just dismiss. It's an important concept and in my opinion a sign of critical thinking.

Sorry, but your last paragraph was sort of a strawman, if it was directed at what I typed. The agnostic element I was talking about isn't "there is something there", it's "we don't know if anything is there untill it's proven".

I voted agnostic.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

It has nothing to do with fear. I don't see how an agnostic philosophy of admitting that you don't know "anything" could stem from fear. And about fear of being illogical... I think you're misusing it now. It's not that I'm afraid of being wrong or illogical. It's a state of frustration if I'm being illogical. It's a psychological imbalance that can be mended by thinking, which is something I just do. So I don't delude myself if I find a philosophical problem. Unless my logic curcuits are broken, then I can't be illogical, as arogant as it may sound. And I don't see how such a feat - of consciously being illogical - would be seen as courageous as opposed to my current "cowardly" state of agnosticism. If we have to this home-psychoanalysis, lets just say I have different values and a different view on life. I'm still an atheist in every way, I just don't find agnosticism something you should just dismiss. It's an important concept and in my opinion a sign of critical thinking.

Sorry, but your last paragraph was sort of a strawman, if it was directed at what I typed. The agnostic element I was talking about isn't "there is something there", it's "we don't know if anything is there untill it's proven".

Huh, you are right. Guess I was too fast on that one.

About the last part, I sort of wrote it out, because my mom argued something similar some days ago, about how there could be a bunch of stuff that we as humans can not detect. I misunderstood what you meant

I'm a type of pantheist, though of my own beliefs regarding it. I actually just found out my beliefs fit into a certain category, though as i said they differ from exact pantheist views.

wait...I can't pick more than one?

I am an agnostic for life.

Agnostoc means essentially UNDECIDED. I'm decided, but will allow that there's some slight possibility - however unlikely - that I could be wrong.

I don't "know for a fact" that there's no god... but I do know for a fact that all existing religions (that I'm aware of) fail the test of skeptical enquiry. Which is expected, since they were invented in primitive superstitious times when we had little understanding of how things really work, and no concept yet of the scientific method, which is all about eliminating ideas that fail to fit with reality. The religions I:m familiar with also all exhibit a strong element of wish fulfillment... mythologies designed to answer some of the most basic human fears. So it's pretty obvious they are invented.

Mmmm sorry... getting a bit off topic. Here's what Im trying to say --

No, I DON'T "know for a fact" that there's no god, but atheism is the only choice that fits with reality as we currently know it. So by your definition, you could call me an agnostic, but until someone can show some convincing evidence for a god then I'm an atheist.

Wow... I could have just written that last sentence... that's all it really takes!

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Agnostoc means essentially UNDECIDED. I'm decided, but will allow that there's some slight possibility - however unlikely - that I could be wrong.

Actually, agnostic means that it is impossible to know weather or not there is a God. It means that you have thought about it and the conclusion you came to was that it is impossible to really know.

ag·nos·tic
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

a·the·ist
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Thus far, we have not been able to observe any dieties. Within the scope of our five senses, the only devices we have to gather information about our world, not once have we observed any solid evidence for a diety of any sort. Obviously, it is impossible to draw a 100% confident conclusion about anything, but to date, and taking into account all that humans know as a species, there is no God. The odds are infinitely small. Really, this falls into a debate on semantics. "Agnostic" carries with it a connotation of equal indecisiveness; that is, the person treats the possibiliy of the existence of dieties as equal to the opposite scenario(s). "Atheist" carries a connotation of active denial or disbelief. So, it is possible to be an open-minded atheist, which for all intents and purposes is one who does not believe in a diety, but is willing to keep an open mind and consider new evidence as it comes to light. This is "soft Atheism," or "weak atheism." Technically, there is a difference between weak atheists and agnostics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism