Any one here religious?

[SocialNumb]

I'm going to guess it's because:

A) They don't want to start a debate.
B) They rather ignore having to deal with the epic Bible pawnage which might lead to doubt threatening their entire world view.

Ignorance is bliss?

 

[kaomao]

It's been proven, in more than one study. Sure people with faith still get sick and have problems, but the studies found that the majority of people with 'faith' fair better in life than those that have faith in nothing... You are more than welcome to do your own study and prove them wrong, but until then I'll believe their results.

I told ya I was agree with you on my post.
"Not always, but I'm agree with you that persons believing in something are happier."

 

[Metaltastic]

lol^

+1

 

[Notuern]

Im a pure satanist!
I slaughter lambs and eat babies! >;D

 

[kaomao]

so... you've added more weight to my argument with that bit.. not yours.

thx,

to me the wikipedia explanation seems leaning towards: someone who's not giving a shit if god exists or not
Not like someone leaning towards atheism or religion as you say
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims is unknown or unknowable"

 

[TheWinterSnow]

I'm going to guess it's because:

A) They don't want to start a debate.
B) They rather ignore having to deal with the epic Bible pawnage which might lead to doubt threatening their entire world view.

Ignorance is bliss?

they would rather ignore that staggering facts to protect their views in bliss. I think that is the differences between the two groups, Anthiest/Agnostic say "prove me wrong" where theists are thinking "don't prove me wrong" and avoid those situations at all costs.

to me the wikipedia explanation seems leaning towards: someone who's not giving a shit if god exists or not
Not like someone leaning towards atheism or religion as you say
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims is unknown or unknowable"

unknown/unknowable and "don't give a shit" are TWO separate things

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

I just remembered. I noticed that the Theists around here are posting on this thread to say what they are, but are not getting involved in the conversations....c'mon guys what gives, any reason you are religious. The Atheists/Agnostics are have explained their reasons and philosophies as to why the hold their lifestyles of choice, the Theists should give some insight of their views.

See my post.

 

[slashvanyoung]

to me the wikipedia explanation seems leaning towards: someone who's not giving a shit if god exists or not
Not like someone leaning towards atheism or religion as you say
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims is unknown or unknowable"

Many Agnostics tend to think that the existence of a deity is irrelevant to their lives because the "truth value" of that claim is unknowable/unprovable.

But that doesn't automatically imply that they "don't give a shit".

That's where your logic is flawed.

I do think that the existence of a higher deity is ultimately irrelevant to my life as I can't disprove nor prove the existence of a deity outside the boundaries of my own cognition.

But at the same time I think such an existence is rather unlikely than likely based on what we can perceive.

So I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

There is no contradiction as these terms aren't highly selective due to the very heterogeneous mass of agnostics, atheists and theists.

 

[kaomao]

they would rather ignore that staggering facts to protect their views in bliss. I think that is the differences between the two groups, Anthiest/Agnostic say "prove me wrong" where theists are thinking "don't prove me wrong" and avoid those situations at all costs.



unknown/unknowable and "don't give a shit" are TWO separate things

Yeah right, that's why I say doesn't give a shit about god, because is something unknown/unknowable

 

[professorlamp]

Wow this thread has derailed into an uber deep mathematical problem

 

[TheWinterSnow]

See my post.

most of the time is gets ugly. I notice that while theists will be stubborn and will refuse to debate, atheists will be the first to throw out name calling and just total d-baggery.

Anyway not much though in getting a reply from a theist explaining why the choose to believe in a god. But obviously through time the debate will turn south, a douche from one side (or both sides) will end up ruining the whole damn thing.

 

[-J-]

I just remembered. I noticed that the Theists around here are posting on this thread to say what they are, but are not getting involved in the conversations....c'mon guys what gives, any reason you are religious. The Atheists/Agnostics are have explained their reasons and philosophies as to why the hold their lifestyles of choice, the Theists should give some insight of their views.

I guess I fall under that category. Without rambling on for 100 pages, the short of it is my wife wanted to start going to church and I kept an open mind. Turns out I like to reflect on my previous week and provide another setting with which to teach my kids right from wrong, with the slant towards doing the right thing. Since I'm finding peace there (and since I didn't burst into flames upon walking in), I keep going. While I may not side with all the beliefs, I don't feel the need to rain on anyone's parade that believes every word. I mull over whatever is going on, take away what I want, and come out the other side with something positive. I'm certainly not the shining example of a religious person, but through going to church with my family, I've been thinking a lot more about faith, morals/values, spirituality, meditation, and how my parents did or didn't instill certain things in me. Through this reflection I've been able to see where they sorta messed up, and where I can do better for my kids. I suppose I look at the bible pretty metaphorically, whereas a lot of "religious" people might look at it as cold hard fact. Blasphemous? Maybe, but I don't have any ill intentions.

 

[TheWinterSnow]

I guess I fall under that category. Without rambling on for 100 pages, the short of it is my wife wanted to start going to church and I kept an open mind. Turns out I like to reflect on my previous week and provide another setting with which to teach my kids right from wrong, with the slant towards doing the right thing. Since I'm finding peace there (and since I didn't burst into flames upon walking in), I keep going. While I may not side with all the beliefs, I don't feel the need to rain on anyone's parade that believes every word. I mull over whatever is going on, take away what I want, and come out the other side with something positive. I'm certainly not the shining example of a religious person, but through going to church with my family, I've been thinking a lot more about faith, morals/values, spirituality, meditation, and how my parents did or didn't instill certain things in me. Through this reflection I've been able to see where they sorta messed up, and where I can do better for my kids. I suppose I look at the bible pretty metaphorically, whereas a lot of "religious" people might look at it as cold hard fact. Blasphemous? Maybe, but I don't have any ill intentions.

After beginning to read the bible on and off, the first thing that I noticed is that it is so metaphorical, its quite hard for me to fathom believing the thing to be cold hard fact, but some people (most likely lacking education or a free thought individual mind) can easily accept it. I do think that the bible is a good book, under the pretense that it is a fictional story that's purpose is to teach morals and humanly values. Now while I would recommend that everyone read it at least once regardless of religion you identify with, when you are done with that everyone should also turn around and pick up a math, science and history book and educate themselves about the physics and laws of the universe as well as the discoveries of the world around us.

The bible will be a guide to family, values/moral, spirituality, and science will show you how stuff works. Having both and understanding the differences and doing everything you can to discover the unknown is better than siding with either extreme. Its about moderation, both sides are here to enrich our lives, not limit it.

 

[pattonfreak1]

"I love going to church. The guy up there tells stories. The old lady wails on the organ. You can sing as loud as you want and no one cares... It's like a religious experience." - Leo

 

[James Murphy]

to me the wikipedia explanation seems leaning towards: someone who's not giving a shit if god exists or not
Not like someone leaning towards atheism or religion as you say
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims is unknown or unknowable"

nope.. best check your english. that definition most definitely lends itself more to supporting uncertainty than indifference.

 

[James Murphy]

Yeah right, that's why I say doesn't give a shit about god, because is something unknown/unknowable

don't know how it works in Italian, but neither "unknown" nor "unknowable" in any way reflect indifference. no, not in any way at all.

 

[TheWinterSnow]

don't know how it works in Italian, but neither "unknown" nor "unknowable" in any way reflect indifference. no, not in any way at all.

Unknown, unknowable, and indifference are all three different concepts that can coincide or be dependent of each other. For example if you say, "proof of god is unknown" or, "I believe that the proof of a god will always be unknowable", that is the basic two extreme views of agnosticism. However saying "I don't give a shit if there is a god" is not agnosticism. Just because you say "proof of god is unknown" does not mean that you don't care to find out if any god is real.

 

[SocialNumb]

After beginning to read the bible on and off, the first thing that I noticed is that it is so metaphorical, its quite hard for me to fathom believing the thing to be cold hard fact, but some people (most likely lacking education or a free thought individual mind) can easily accept it. I do think that the bible is a good book, under the pretense that it is a fictional story that's purpose is to teach morals and humanly values. Now while I would recommend that everyone read it at least once regardless of religion you identify with, when you are done with that everyone should also turn around and pick up a math, science and history book and educate themselves about the physics and laws of the universe as well as the discoveries of the world around us.

The bible will be a guide to family, values/moral, spirituality, and science will show you how stuff works. Having both and understanding the differences and doing everything you can to discover the unknown is better than siding with either extreme. Its about moderation, both sides are here to enrich our lives, not limit it.

I see the Bible as a negative book. With a vengeful, jealous, genocidal, childish asshole who kills and punishes his own creation because he couldn't get shit right in the first place. The dude is just plain crazy. The book contains every atrocity the human mind can think of. IMO the book is disgusting. uke:

 

[STINNETT]

Not giving a shit: Apatheism

 

[James Murphy]

I do think that the bible is a good book, under the pretense that it is a fictional story that's purpose is to teach morals and humanly values.

you definitely haven't read much of the bible.... and you really should, especially the old testament, but the new testament as well. in no way, shape, or form are they books for teaching morality to children or anyone else.

within the pages of the bible lie the warrants for slavery, rape, murder, genocide, bigamy, incest, homophobia, misogyny, and every other manner of reprehensible behavior... and that's just the stuff given specific divine issuance.

even with the new testament, in which we get for the first time... with "gentle jesus, meek and mild"... the threat of hell and eternity in it, we have all manner of appalling behavior and hate.

no no, don't you fool yourself that the bible is an iconographic source of morality. it's certainly not, and teaching it's contents to children should be considered child abuse.