Athiest Playbook

[defcon4]

You believe a God talked to moses or impregnated Mary?

Here you go…. Moses. This old guy climbed up to this mountain, probably panting, exhausted, thirsty and hungry. He sets out to quarry sheet rocks from the face of boulders. Then, he start chiseling the Law into them, his long beard annoyingly being in the way. He comes back down with those heavy rock tablets.. and you think it is child's play? No…no..no.. It took super human efforts.
Anyhow, allegorical speech is not for everybody, let him be religious or atheist. You can go at it 'til your death bed, unless you understand the underlying (hidden) meaning of Scriptures (Judeo-Christian or others) you will never get to an agreement. Do I understand hidden teachings? Not even close but I wish I did and I am making efforts to learn without bashing, ridiculing or contesting those who believe otherwise.

 

[Bonzi]

Can it be ammended or misinterpreted? I mean is it?

What is it you believe actually? You believe a God talked to moses or impregnated Mary?

First you have to prove God exists before you tell me what he can do for me. Otherwise it's wishful thinking.

You lost me at hello. Lol

People can certainly misinterpret the Bible (and change it) - the leading of the Holy Spirit speaks truth to the Christian when they are reading the Bible and reveals Godly truths. God can reveal his truths to the non-Christian as well, if they are seeking him. Picking it apart and looking at it literally is only intellectualism.

I do believe that God spoke to Moses and other people in the Bible as well. He speaks to us today. I have not heard him audibly myself. I can't speak for others. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.

The burden of proof is not on me. I am only a Christian telling you my beliefs. God can prove to you He is real if you open your heart and your mind. You can just dismiss it as foolishness, or, contemplate the possibility and open-mindedly look at all available sources.

That's a shame if I lost you. I'm not the person you should be hearing the Gospel from, if that is the case.

 

[presonorek]

What do you find so wonderful about these religions? Please elaborate. It's not very often that you find an atheist who thinks any religion is "awesome."

Sealybobo has done a great job summarizing my point of view in Post #157. Humans have survival characteristic similar to sheep or lemmings. An atheistic philosophy is more consistent with the lifestyle of a wolf. Humans do not thrive as loners. Atheist are individualistic and shy away from the herd. A nation full of sheep will be much more efficient than a nation full of wolves.

It would really take me a book worth of writing to explain why I find Christianity so beneficial, contagious, powerful, unifying and beautiful.

I believe in the Hindu concept of Ishvara. This is a concept that there are powerful people and powerful forces all around you that you cannot control. Judaism/Christianity summarizes that into one force known as God. That mentality equips you to be a follower, servant, slave, sheep, lemming but does a poor job equipping you as a leader. Some leaders in real life share the exact same traits as Jehovah in the Old Testament. In the New Testament Jesus comes and shows us how to be one of these amazing followers of the God force or in Christian terms simply, God. Jesus Christ teaches us that if you submit to these mean, nasty and powerful people they can still destroy you. The secret is that you don't have to be scared over it. Even after they destroy you, you can dust yourself off and get back up and try again. Christianity is a very advanced philosophical system. People get caught up in the basics or the cosmetics of Christianity and miss out on an amazing philosophical system that will yield an abundant life or "eternal life". You have to submit to the God force but still maximize the benefits available from the God force without being destroyed. Nikolas Shreck is a Satanist that refers to Christianity in a derogatory fashion and calls it a slave religion. I agree wholeheartedly but don't see that as a bad thing at all. You have probably heard many times this saying, "Too many chiefs, not enough indians". Christianity tries to fill the constant void of "indians" or followers. No matter how far we advance as a people there will always be a need for followers. There will always be an overabundance of leaders. Most leader-types are destroyed or dethroned eventually. It's all a matter of time. The servant can lose his status as servant but can easily recover or be "resurrected" from his fall from servanthood.

Christianity is something incredible. Now I'll touch on Mormonism................................................

 

[Meriweather]

But the cross was not originally a Christian symbol. It was a pagan symbol, which was borrowed and changed to fit Christianity.

This is a fallacy. The cross is a symbol for Christians because Christ died on a cross. The cultures that did use similar symbols were not in the same regions where Christianity originated.

The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop and Babylon Mystery Religion by Ralph Woodrow are what started the 'pagan influence' fallacy. What's not remembered is that later Woodrow realized he had made some erroneous conclusions and wrote another book repudiating his first and refuting those and Hislops claims about pagan influence. Naturally, not a lot of people cared about the second book.

When someone claims "pagan influence" they have to be able to accurately show at least three things:

1) Is there an accurate parallel? i.e., three Hindhu Gods do not make up a Trinity.
2) If a parallel is found, is it dependent or independent? (Many cultures develop similar or identical ideas.) For example, if there is a carving of a mother and child in Africa, was it copied (dependent) of the Africa carving, or did the same inspiration arise independently? Was one the result of the other?
3) Scholarship has shown that many pagan ideas/events arose in reaction to Christianity--not vice-versa. Saturnalia is one example.

One of my other true childhood loves was Greek and Roman mythology. When someone presents "similarities", the differences is what tells the tale. (Inaccurate parallels.)

No, the cross was not copied; it developed independently.

I think it's pretty well known fact that Christians borrowed a lot of pagan symbols. It is the same with our holidays. They are a mixture of pagan and Christian beliefs, especially much of the symbolism.

Yes, especially thanks to the Internet, the fallacies are known. The question is, how correct are they? Scholars respond, "Not very."

It's kind of like going into a neighbor's house and claiming that since they have a recliner, dining table and chairs, beds, and a TV the obvious conclusion is that they copied you! It is much more complex than that.

Well, I agree. I didn't say it was simplistic. I said that a lot of Christian symbols and holidays were in fact "borrowed" from pagan belief systems. Like the belief that Christ was born on December 25.

Origin of Christmas The history of Christmas and how it began

How Did Christmas Come to Be Celebrated on December 25?

A.Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.” Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman.

B.The ancient Greek writer poet and historian Lucian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia) describes the festival’s observance in his time. In addition to human sacrifice, he mentions these customs: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits (still produced in some English and most German bakeries during the Christmas season).

C.In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians.[2]

D.The problem was that there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. To remedy this, these Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25th, to be Jesus’ birthday.

Saturnalia was originally celebrated on December 17. Sol Invicta (birth of the sun), celebrated on December 25, was brought to Rome in the third century, and some think it was in answer to Christians celebrating Christ's birth on December 25. (Birth of the sun and Birth of the Son) There is written material that confirm Christians avoided Saturnalia. In the very early days of Christianity, people didn't even celebrate birthdays...so what were they celebrating?

In early times, it was thought that Christ died on the day that he was conceived. Those using the Greek calendar noted that this was April 6; those using the Latin calendar noted the date was March 25. However, what both these dates are based on Roman/Greek interpretations of the Judean calendar and when Passover occurred. Nine months after conception was the birth, which wasn't seen as that important, but what was seen as important was that three Maji acknowledging the birth of Christ, which was also thought would also happen to be the day Christ was baptized.

It seems Emperor Aurelian brought sun worship and the feast of the birth of the sun on December 25 to combat the growth of Christianity. I tend to think this is going too far in the other direction. My point is that Saturnalia began on December 17, then later grew to last a week. Meanwhile, Christians were focused on when Christ died and it was popularly accepted that the Annunciation of his birth occurred on the same calendar day as his death, which was then calculated by the Jewish calendar to be March 25/April 6.

So we see, Jesus birth had nothing to do with pagan celebrations surrounding the winter solstice--and everything to do with the Jewish Passover. They are simply parallels that do not connect. In the same way, was Aurelian wanting to stomp out all things Christian--or was he simply a believer of the sun god and the birth of the sun was said to be during the winter solstice? I tend to believe the latter.

What adds to the furor is that no doubt Christians/Pagans saw the foods/decorations of the other and were no more shy about including foods/ornaments popular at the time into various celebrations. It is kind of like accusing the Pilgrims of borrowing the use of pumpkins from those celebrating Halloween, when in fact, pumpkins are available the time of year both holidays occur. There is also the fact, centuries later (1200s) a Pope did say not to abolish pagan holidays but to turn them into feast days of Christian martyrs.

However, with all the information scholars have now, it appears the December holidays all began for different reasons, and the only one that might have been an attempt to stomp out the others was Sol Inviticus. I would agree holiday decorations and foods were indeed borrowed from all groups. I see it as an ongoing process that is still going on and is separate from the reasons for each celebration.

 

[presonorek]

It's not very often that you find an atheist who thinks any religion is "awesome."

I doubt that. I'm sure churches are chock full of them. If you love religion as a philosophy, lifestyle and/or pastime; why would you jeopardize it by telling anybody that you are an atheist? That's just suicide.

Nobody in my social circle knows that I am an atheist. Even if I told them they would giggle, laugh and say, "Oh vasuderatorrent you are so funny." My lifestyle is so consistent with Christian culture that the insides of my head are irrelevant to everyone except here. This is where I spill my guts for my own entertainment. Being an atheist by belief and a Christian by behavior is probably an extremely common thing. I doubt that I am the only closet atheist who practices Christianity publicly.

 

[presonorek]

What's so awesome about these religions? I thought pastafarianism was the most awesome religion? That's what you used to say.

....................Mormonism builds onto Christianity. Mormonism adds the elements of improved ethics, economic flexibility, enhanced level of unity, reduced level of corruption, an impressive empire (an empire that rivals not but does not exceed the Roman Catholic Church or the Nation of Israel) and a more upbeat spirit among its membership.

Mormons learn about the concept of Ishvara or the God force. They however add that they can become Gods too but only after they master the role of servant. In real life this translates to Mormons being more comfortable in management positions. Christians often have a hard time reconciling their role as a leader or manager. It feels dirty and is inconsistent with their core values. Mormons don't suffer with this conflict. This makes the Mormon a perfect candidate to be a servant, manager, leader or owner of a company. The unity of Mormons is phenomenal. They build these beautiful temples all over the world. Most Christian organizations are severely limited because they disagree with the church down the street. The Mormons have a living legacy through the prophets. They believe the President of the Church talks to God. This gives them the unique ability to maintain cultural relevance indefinitely. Christianity is bound by the traditions of the past. Mormon bishops are paid absolutely $0.00 for their service to the kingdom. The paid hierarchy in some Christian organizations is offensive and appears sinister to some non-believers. Mormons don't have this problem with their image. The second most visible amazing attribute of Mormonism is the quality of interaction with Mormons. These people are basically trained salesman. Their founder was a master salesman so this tradition does make sense. Mormons make you feel energized, appreciated and welcome almost all the time. That tradition has most certainly been lost among mainstream Christians. The belief system of Mormons is consistent with American geography, American history, American ethics and the entrepreneurial spirit that was important for survival in the early days of American. This religion is totally American and has more attributes that resonant with an American. Christianity was a religion founded in the deserts of the Middle East. Geography is an important factor in the development of philosophy. Christianity gets altered on American soil just a tad. Mormonism manifests itself best across the fruited plain. Mormonism is an incredible invention or revelation from God. If God restored the church through Joseph Smith then I absolutely love the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If Joseph Smith made up the Mormon religion as a con then I love it even more. At minimum we have heard a story about a man that was the greatest story teller who ever lived. This man was barely educated but created a powerful religious force that has made the world a much better place. Some of us can't even convince our kids to put their dirty dishes in the sink. This man convinced hundreds to uproot their lives and follow him to unknown lands. Even if Mormonism collapses, the story of Joseph Smith himself will live forever.

 

[zaangalewa]

Why does it matter to you what I believe? I really don't care WTF you believe as long as you don't fuck with my right to believe I am not the center of the universe.

You are somehow wrong. You are maybe not the center of the universe - but you are in the center of the universe. Whereever you are in this universe - it expands from you in all directions. So you are in the center. But: there are only centers - everywhere in every position within this universe so the universe is without an outside.

I was always fascinated from the little angel who had the task to find out how to produce dry water drops and created snow flakes. But maybe the reality of an expanding universe is even much more gigantic.

For the record the only reason you know that it's because of science. 200 years ago they didn't know what you just said.

So what?

They thought

¿Who?

the Earth Stood Still

200 years ago "they" knew since 300 years that the Earth turns around the sun.

and everything around us because God put us here and they couldn't imagine that we two were swirling around the universe it looked like we were in a fixed position and that everything revolved around us.

If so this made it not impossible for men like Ørsted and Sturgeon to invent an electromagnet.

That's what they thought not what you said so they got it wrong

Sorry - but what is wrong what I said here? Only because you think Christians should not exist - and ifelse they should not know anything about natural science - explains only something about your own brainwashed psychological structure. Santa Claus Copernicus for example was about 500 years ago the chief of a catholic Cathedral. What did your ancestors discuss in those days? They knew nothing about what you learned in school today? How astonishing.

and now you're trying to spin it using the very same science that debunked your creation story. It didn't take 7 days to make the earth

Right. Today is the eighth day and it's not over yet.

 

[zaangalewa]

In don't have any idea why nobody seems to know that is impossible to be an agnostic. Agnosticism is not a belief, agnosticisms is a philosophy and this philosophy shows two possible ways: to believe in the existance of god or not to believe that god exists. More concrete: You are no able to believe that god is existing and not existing the same time - although it could be in this way: god could exist and not exist the same time.(He's the allmighty creator of existance itselve.) But if you believe this then you kill your logic. Someone who believes "A" and "not A" are true believes in everything so everything becomes true. But not everything becomes true. I don't have for example 12 fingers on my left hand like everybody else because I lost a half finger. How I Iost it are 5127 different stories.

An atheist believes there is no god.
A theist believes there is a god.
An agnostic believes that he/she doesn't know. (No kidding!)

That's nonsense. An agnostics knows that there is no philosophical answer wether god exists or not. Agnosticism is a philosophy not a religion. An Atheist believes not in god (or transcendence or spirituality). He thinks a-atheists(=theists=Jew+Christians+Muslim+...) are wrong. The big problem of atheists is to to think that they could be wrong on their own. God could exist.

Agnosticism is a cowardly position to take.

Again: Agnosticism is not a religious position. It's a philosophy. For Christians philosophies are important because we believe "god is logos". But not everyone thinks in categories of philosophy; God loves this people too.

It is the non-offensive way to be an atheist. We can all be defined agnostic.

I'm agnostic on my own - and I'm Catholic. Agnosticism is part of my philosophy, Catholicism part of my christian religion.

Even the most devout Christian has a hair of doubt. Even the most staunch atheist isn't completely closed to the possibility.

We are all some unmeasurable mix of theist/atheist. It could be 49.999/50.001 but we all more to one side than the other.

That's exactly not this what agnosticism says. Agnosticism knows 100% that no one knows wether god exists or not.

Taken an agnostic position on the matter is like saying, "I have to talk to sound smart but I'm not going to defend anything." If you are afraid of the debate then why bother sticking your head into the discussion?

Not at all. It is saying, "I am not ruling out the possibility, but since there is no evidence . . . I am skeptical" There is nothing wrong with that position

When god created existance he was not existing because there was no existance. So you know now: God was once not existing when nothing was existing. If we speak about "Holy is he who never begun and who always was" then we speak not about a form of existance what's able to be thought in categories of philosophies or sciences. You can believe it or let it be to believe this. That's all.

and it is more honest than saying there definitely is or definitely is not a God. Also, many agnostics might even believe in a higher power but that it is not the Christian God or the Muslim God, or whatever god someone else may believe in. Also, many agnostics do not believe in any of the "organized religions" since they were made up by ancient men who were ignorant of the world around them. They attributed such things as volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes and other such events to "works of God" or "the gods are angry, time to sacrifice a virgin or a sheep."

You defend your belief - better to say: you agress your belief and your belief is just simple atheism. You are not skeptic in case of atheism.

 

[ChrisL]

In don't have any idea why nobody seems to know that is impossible to be an agnostic. Agnosticism is not a belief, agnosticisms is a philosophy and this philosophy shows two possible ways: to believe in the existance of god or not to believe that god exists. More concrete: You are no able to believe that god is existing and not existing the same time - although it could be in this way: god could exist and not exist the same time.(He's the allmighty creator of existance itselve.) But if you believe this then you kill your logic. Someone who believes "A" and "not A" are true believes in everything so everything becomes true. But not everything becomes true. I don't have for example 12 fingers on my left hand like everybody else because I lost a half finger. How I Iost it are 5127 different stories.

An atheist believes there is no god.
A theist believes there is a god.
An agnostic believes that he/she doesn't know. (No kidding!)

That's nonsense. An agnostics knows that there is no philosophical answer wether god exists or not. Agnosticism is a philosophy not a religion. An Atheist believes not in god (or transcendence or spirituality). He thinks a-atheists(=theists=Jew+Christians+Muslim+...) are wrong. The big problem of atheists is to to think that they could be wrong on their own. God could exist.

Agnosticism is a cowardly position to take.

Again: Agnosticism is not a religious position. It's a philosophy. For Christians philosophies are important because we believe "god is logos". But not everyone thinks in categories of philosophy; God loves this people too.

It is the non-offensive way to be an atheist. We can all be defined agnostic.

I'm agnostic on my own - and I'm Catholic. Agnosticism is part of my philosophy, Catholicism part of my christian religion.

Even the most devout Christian has a hair of doubt. Even the most staunch atheist isn't completely closed to the possibility.

We are all some unmeasurable mix of theist/atheist. It could be 49.999/50.001 but we all more to one side than the other.

That's exactly not this what agnosticism says. Agnosticism knows 100% that no one knows wether god exists or not.

Taken an agnostic position on the matter is like saying, "I have to talk to sound smart but I'm not going to defend anything." If you are afraid of the debate then why bother sticking your head into the discussion?

Not at all. It is saying, "I am not ruling out the possibility, but since there is no evidence . . . I am skeptical" There is nothing wrong with that position

When god created existance he was not existing because there was no existance. So you know now: God was once not existing when nothing was existing. If we speak about "Holy is he who never begun and who always was" then we speak not about a form of existance what's able to be thought in categories of philosophies or sciences. You can believe it or let it be to believe this. That's all.

and it is more honest than saying there definitely is or definitely is not a God. Also, many agnostics might even believe in a higher power but that it is not the Christian God or the Muslim God, or whatever god someone else may believe in. Also, many agnostics do not believe in any of the "organized religions" since they were made up by ancient men who were ignorant of the world around them. They attributed such things as volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes and other such events to "works of God" or "the gods are angry, time to sacrifice a virgin or a sheep."

You defend your belief - better to say: you agress your belief and your belief is just simple atheism. You are not skeptic in case of atheism.

I don't know if you meant to quote me here, but I am not an atheist since I do not know whether or not there is a "higher power." That is to say, there is the possibility but since there is no evidence of a higher power in existence, I reserve some skepticism, perhaps a lot. Also, believing in the possibility of a "higher power" doesn't mean it has to be the Christian, Muslim or whomever's "god." It could be something completely different. I can say without much doubt that I do not believe in the organized religions though. Atheists believe that there is no higher power or god.

 

[ChrisL]

What's so awesome about these religions? I thought pastafarianism was the most awesome religion? That's what you used to say.

....................Mormonism builds onto Christianity. Mormonism adds the elements of improved ethics, economic flexibility, enhanced level of unity, reduced level of corruption, an impressive empire (an empire that rivals not but does not exceed the Roman Catholic Church or the Nation of Israel) and a more upbeat spirit among its membership.

Mormons learn about the concept of Ishvara or the God force. They however add that they can become Gods too but only after they master the role of servant. In real life this translates to Mormons being more comfortable in management positions. Christians often have a hard time reconciling their role as a leader or manager. It feels dirty and is inconsistent with their core values. Mormons don't suffer with this conflict. This makes the Mormon a perfect candidate to be a servant, manager, leader or owner of a company. The unity of Mormons is phenomenal. They build these beautiful temples all over the world. Most Christian organizations are severely limited because they disagree with the church down the street. The Mormons have a living legacy through the prophets. They believe the President of the Church talks to God. This gives them the unique ability to maintain cultural relevance indefinitely. Christianity is bound by the traditions of the past. Mormon bishops are paid absolutely $0.00 for their service to the kingdom. The paid hierarchy in some Christian organizations is offensive and appears sinister to some non-believers. Mormons don't have this problem with their image. The second most visible amazing attribute of Mormonism is the quality of interaction with Mormons. These people are basically trained salesman. Their founder was a master salesman so this tradition does make sense. Mormons make you feel energized, appreciated and welcome almost all the time. That tradition has most certainly been lost among mainstream Christians. The belief system of Mormons is consistent with American geography, American history, American ethics and the entrepreneurial spirit that was important for survival in the early days of American. This religion is totally American and has more attributes that resonant with an American. Christianity was a religion founded in the deserts of the Middle East. Geography is an important factor in the development of philosophy. Christianity gets altered on American soil just a tad. Mormonism manifests itself best across the fruited plain. Mormonism is an incredible invention or revelation from God. If God restored the church through Joseph Smith then I absolutely love the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If Joseph Smith made up the Mormon religion as a con then I love it even more. At minimum we have heard a story about a man that was the greatest story teller who ever lived. This man was barely educated but created a powerful religious force that has made the world a much better place. Some of us can't even convince our kids to put their dirty dishes in the sink. This man convinced hundreds to uproot their lives and follow him to unknown lands. Even if Mormonism collapses, the story of Joseph Smith himself will live forever.

Blah, blah, blah. This means absolutely nothing. All of the things you speak of have nothing to do with the religion, but more to do with individual traits. People of any religion or belief can have these traits. The "beauty" of their temples depends on the wealth of their donors. Means nothing to me. To be completely honest, I think organized religion holds us back.

 

[zaangalewa]

In don't have any idea why nobody seems to know that is impossible to be an agnostic. Agnosticism is not a belief, agnosticisms is a philosophy and this philosophy shows two possible ways: to believe in the existance of god or not to believe that god exists. More concrete: You are no able to believe that god is existing and not existing the same time - although it could be in this way: god could exist and not exist the same time.(He's the allmighty creator of existance itselve.) But if you believe this then you kill your logic. Someone who believes "A" and "not A" are true believes in everything so everything becomes true. But not everything becomes true. I don't have for example 12 fingers on my left hand like everybody else because I lost a half finger. How I Iost it are 5127 different stories.

An atheist believes there is no god.
A theist believes there is a god.
An agnostic believes that he/she doesn't know. (No kidding!)

That's nonsense. An agnostics knows that there is no philosophical answer wether god exists or not. Agnosticism is a philosophy not a religion. An Atheist believes not in god (or transcendence or spirituality). He thinks a-atheists(=theists=Jew+Christians+Muslim+...) are wrong. The big problem of atheists is to to think that they could be wrong on their own. God could exist.

Agnosticism is a cowardly position to take.

Again: Agnosticism is not a religious position. It's a philosophy. For Christians philosophies are important because we believe "god is logos". But not everyone thinks in categories of philosophy; God loves this people too.

It is the non-offensive way to be an atheist. We can all be defined agnostic.

I'm agnostic on my own - and I'm Catholic. Agnosticism is part of my philosophy, Catholicism part of my christian religion.

Even the most devout Christian has a hair of doubt. Even the most staunch atheist isn't completely closed to the possibility.

We are all some unmeasurable mix of theist/atheist. It could be 49.999/50.001 but we all more to one side than the other.

That's exactly not this what agnosticism says. Agnosticism knows 100% that no one knows wether god exists or not.

Taken an agnostic position on the matter is like saying, "I have to talk to sound smart but I'm not going to defend anything." If you are afraid of the debate then why bother sticking your head into the discussion?

Not at all. It is saying, "I am not ruling out the possibility, but since there is no evidence . . . I am skeptical" There is nothing wrong with that position

When god created existance he was not existing because there was no existance. So you know now: God was once not existing when nothing was existing. If we speak about "Holy is he who never begun and who always was" then we speak not about a form of existance what's able to be thought in categories of philosophies or sciences. You can believe it or let it be to believe this. That's all.

and it is more honest than saying there definitely is or definitely is not a God. Also, many agnostics might even believe in a higher power but that it is not the Christian God or the Muslim God, or whatever god someone else may believe in. Also, many agnostics do not believe in any of the "organized religions" since they were made up by ancient men who were ignorant of the world around them. They attributed such things as volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes and other such events to "works of God" or "the gods are angry, time to sacrifice a virgin or a sheep."

You defend your belief - better to say: you agress your belief and your belief is just simple atheism. You are not skeptic in case of atheism.

I don't know if you meant to quote me here, but I am not an atheist since I do not know whether or not there is a "higher power."

We are for example not able to produce energy. But energy exists. This energy came from a higher power. Now you know that there was once a higher power.

That is to say, there is the possibility

Agnosticism speaks not about possibilities. Agnosticism speaks about what we are able to know about the existance of god. And the result is: We are not able to know wether god exists or not.

but since there is no evidence of a higher power in existence, I reserve some skepticism, perhaps a lot.

The problem is you are not able to build a falsifyable hypothese about the existance of the creator of existance.

Also, believing in the possibility

sigh

of a "higher power" doesn't mean it has to be the Christian, Muslim or whomever's "god." It could be something completely different. I can say without much doubt that I do not believe in the organized religions though. Atheists believe that there is no higher power or god.

So why is something here and not only nothing here?

 

[ChrisL]

In don't have any idea why nobody seems to know that is impossible to be an agnostic. Agnosticism is not a belief, agnosticisms is a philosophy and this philosophy shows two possible ways: to believe in the existance of god or not to believe that god exists. More concrete: You are no able to believe that god is existing and not existing the same time - although it could be in this way: god could exist and not exist the same time.(He's the allmighty creator of existance itselve.) But if you believe this then you kill your logic. Someone who believes "A" and "not A" are true believes in everything so everything becomes true. But not everything becomes true. I don't have for example 12 fingers on my left hand like everybody else because I lost a half finger. How I Iost it are 5127 different stories.

An atheist believes there is no god.
A theist believes there is a god.
An agnostic believes that he/she doesn't know. (No kidding!)

That's nonsense. An agnostics knows that there is no philosophical answer wether god exists or not. Agnosticism is a philosophy not a religion. An Atheist believes not in god (or transcendence or spirituality). He thinks a-atheists(=theists=Jew+Christians+Muslim+...) are wrong. The big problem of atheists is to to think that they could be wrong on their own. God could exist.

Agnosticism is a cowardly position to take.

Again: Agnosticism is not a religious position. It's a philosophy. For Christians philosophies are important because we believe "god is logos". But not everyone thinks in categories of philosophy; God loves this people too.

It is the non-offensive way to be an atheist. We can all be defined agnostic.

I'm agnostic on my own - and I'm Catholic. Agnosticism is part of my philosophy, Catholicism part of my christian religion.

Even the most devout Christian has a hair of doubt. Even the most staunch atheist isn't completely closed to the possibility.

We are all some unmeasurable mix of theist/atheist. It could be 49.999/50.001 but we all more to one side than the other.

That's exactly not this what agnosticism says. Agnosticism knows 100% that no one knows wether god exists or not.

Taken an agnostic position on the matter is like saying, "I have to talk to sound smart but I'm not going to defend anything." If you are afraid of the debate then why bother sticking your head into the discussion?

Not at all. It is saying, "I am not ruling out the possibility, but since there is no evidence . . . I am skeptical" There is nothing wrong with that position

When god created existance he was not existing because there was no existance. So you know now: God was once not existing when nothing was existing. If we speak about "Holy is he who never begun and who always was" then we speak not about a form of existance what's able to be thought in categories of philosophies or sciences. You can believe it or let it be to believe this. That's all.

and it is more honest than saying there definitely is or definitely is not a God. Also, many agnostics might even believe in a higher power but that it is not the Christian God or the Muslim God, or whatever god someone else may believe in. Also, many agnostics do not believe in any of the "organized religions" since they were made up by ancient men who were ignorant of the world around them. They attributed such things as volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes and other such events to "works of God" or "the gods are angry, time to sacrifice a virgin or a sheep."

You defend your belief - better to say: you agress your belief and your belief is just simple atheism. You are not skeptic in case of atheism.

I don't know if you meant to quote me here, but I am not an atheist since I do not know whether or not there is a "higher power."

We are for example not able to produce energy. But energy exists. This energy came from a higher power. Now you know that there was once a higher power.

That is to say, there is the possibility

Agnosticism speaks not about possibilities. Agnosticism speaks about what we are able to know about the existance of god. And the result is: We are not able to know wether god exists or not.

but since there is no evidence of a higher power in existence, I reserve some skepticism, perhaps a lot.

The problem is you are not able to build a falsifyable hypothese about the existance of the creator of existance.

Also, believing in the possibility

sigh

of a "higher power" doesn't mean it has to be the Christian, Muslim or whomever's "god." It could be something completely different. I can say without much doubt that I do not believe in the organized religions though. Atheists believe that there is no higher power or god.

So why is something here and not only nothing here?

Why are you posting music videos? I'm not watching them. Anyhow, you are wrong. You don't define what I believe or do not believe, got that?

 

[ChrisL]

In don't have any idea why nobody seems to know that is impossible to be an agnostic. Agnosticism is not a belief, agnosticisms is a philosophy and this philosophy shows two possible ways: to believe in the existance of god or not to believe that god exists. More concrete: You are no able to believe that god is existing and not existing the same time - although it could be in this way: god could exist and not exist the same time.(He's the allmighty creator of existance itselve.) But if you believe this then you kill your logic. Someone who believes "A" and "not A" are true believes in everything so everything becomes true. But not everything becomes true. I don't have for example 12 fingers on my left hand like everybody else because I lost a half finger. How I Iost it are 5127 different stories.

An atheist believes there is no god.
A theist believes there is a god.
An agnostic believes that he/she doesn't know. (No kidding!)

That's nonsense. An agnostics knows that there is no philosophical answer wether god exists or not. Agnosticism is a philosophy not a religion. An Atheist believes not in god (or transcendence or spirituality). He thinks a-atheists(=theists=Jew+Christians+Muslim+...) are wrong. The big problem of atheists is to to think that they could be wrong on their own. God could exist.

Agnosticism is a cowardly position to take.

Again: Agnosticism is not a religious position. It's a philosophy. For Christians philosophies are important because we believe "god is logos". But not everyone thinks in categories of philosophy; God loves this people too.

It is the non-offensive way to be an atheist. We can all be defined agnostic.

I'm agnostic on my own - and I'm Catholic. Agnosticism is part of my philosophy, Catholicism part of my christian religion.

Even the most devout Christian has a hair of doubt. Even the most staunch atheist isn't completely closed to the possibility.

We are all some unmeasurable mix of theist/atheist. It could be 49.999/50.001 but we all more to one side than the other.

That's exactly not this what agnosticism says. Agnosticism knows 100% that no one knows wether god exists or not.

Taken an agnostic position on the matter is like saying, "I have to talk to sound smart but I'm not going to defend anything." If you are afraid of the debate then why bother sticking your head into the discussion?

Not at all. It is saying, "I am not ruling out the possibility, but since there is no evidence . . . I am skeptical" There is nothing wrong with that position

When god created existance he was not existing because there was no existance. So you know now: God was once not existing when nothing was existing. If we speak about "Holy is he who never begun and who always was" then we speak not about a form of existance what's able to be thought in categories of philosophies or sciences. You can believe it or let it be to believe this. That's all.

and it is more honest than saying there definitely is or definitely is not a God. Also, many agnostics might even believe in a higher power but that it is not the Christian God or the Muslim God, or whatever god someone else may believe in. Also, many agnostics do not believe in any of the "organized religions" since they were made up by ancient men who were ignorant of the world around them. They attributed such things as volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes and other such events to "works of God" or "the gods are angry, time to sacrifice a virgin or a sheep."

You defend your belief - better to say: you agress your belief and your belief is just simple atheism. You are not skeptic in case of atheism.

I don't know if you meant to quote me here, but I am not an atheist since I do not know whether or not there is a "higher power."

We are for example not able to produce energy. But energy exists. This energy came from a higher power. Now you know that there was once a higher power.

That is to say, there is the possibility

Agnosticism speaks not about possibilities. Agnosticism speaks about what we are able to know about the existance of god. And the result is: We are not able to know wether god exists or not.

but since there is no evidence of a higher power in existence, I reserve some skepticism, perhaps a lot.

The problem is you are not able to build a falsifyable hypothese about the existance of the creator of existance.

Also, believing in the possibility

sigh

of a "higher power" doesn't mean it has to be the Christian, Muslim or whomever's "god." It could be something completely different. I can say without much doubt that I do not believe in the organized religions though. Atheists believe that there is no higher power or god.

So why is something here and not only nothing here?

agnostic
[ag-nos-tik]

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God,and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic,secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge insome area of study.
3.
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

 

[sealybobo]

Interesting to know we are the fastest growing segment of the population

Have you see the statistic that says of children who were raised atheist, only 30 percent remain atheist? As opposed to those who were raised Catholic, 68 percent, remained Catholic.

I ask because I always regard statistics with suspicion. In my small circle of atheists, that statistic doesn't seem to bear out (as all have remained atheists), but then I don't have a large circle of atheists from which to draw.

In other words a lot of people who's parents weren't religious become religious?

I don't know about those statistics but I can speculate. A lot of people that were raised "athiest" might just mean their parents didn't practice or talk about religion. The 70% of there children end up hearing about religion and get sucked in. Then they try to convert their parents.

Athiests like you and me would educate our kids and the chances of them falling for a religion would be much lower.

 

[sealybobo]

You believe a God talked to moses or impregnated Mary?

Here you go…. Moses. This old guy climbed up to this mountain, probably panting, exhausted, thirsty and hungry. He sets out to quarry sheet rocks from the face of boulders. Then, he start chiseling the Law into them, his long beard annoyingly being in the way. He comes back down with those heavy rock tablets.. and you think it is child's play? No…no..no.. It took super human efforts.
Anyhow, allegorical speech is not for everybody, let him be religious or atheist. You can go at it 'til your death bed, unless you understand the underlying (hidden) meaning of Scriptures (Judeo-Christian or others) you will never get to an agreement. Do I understand hidden teachings? Not even close but I wish I did and I am making efforts to learn without bashing, ridiculing or contesting those who believe otherwise.

Stop wasting your time. Study science and astronomy.

The hidden message. I don't need to know what men 2000 said or did. They were superstitious and ignorant. A lot like we are now but today we are a little smarter. Imagine us 2000 years from now.

 

[sealybobo]

Can it be ammended or misinterpreted? I mean is it?

What is it you believe actually? You believe a God talked to moses or impregnated Mary?

First you have to prove God exists before you tell me what he can do for me. Otherwise it's wishful thinking.

You lost me at hello. Lol

People can certainly misinterpret the Bible (and change it) - the leading of the Holy Spirit speaks truth to the Christian when they are reading the Bible and reveals Godly truths. God can reveal his truths to the non-Christian as well, if they are seeking him. Picking it apart and looking at it literally is only intellectualism.

I do believe that God spoke to Moses and other people in the Bible as well. He speaks to us today. I have not heard him audibly myself. I can't speak for others. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.

The burden of proof is not on me. I am only a Christian telling you my beliefs. God can prove to you He is real if you open your heart and your mind. You can just dismiss it as foolishness, or, contemplate the possibility and open-mindedly look at all available sources.

That's a shame if I lost you. I'm not the person you should be hearing the Gospel from, if that is the case.

I opened my heart and mind and realized there is no God. It's OK if you want to believe. The guy who just shot people in Tennessee was a devout believer in God too by the way.

He opened up his heart and mind and look what happened.

Don't assume everyone is as gullible as you. Do you really think every thoughtful athiest didn't give it a shot? We tried and we just don't buy your religion.

The same way you don't buy a Muslim or Mormons story. We are both athiests. You just believe one more religion than I do.

 

[presonorek]

Blah, blah, blah. This means absolutely nothing. All of the things you speak of have nothing to do with the religion, but more to do with individual traits. People of any religion or belief can have these traits. The "beauty" of their temples depends on the wealth of their donors. Means nothing to me. To be completely honest, I think organized religion holds us back.

I'm sorry. I believe I have reached my lifetime quota of answering questions for you. I have answered many questions for you and you are always terribly ungrateful for the answers that I provided. I'm continuing to believe that you are a hard headed trouble maker that has no interest in listening to anybody.

You asked me why I think Christianity and Mormonism are amazing religions then you get all upset like I stole your birthday or something. Go play with somebody else. I don't want to be your idiot anymore. Get a new idiot that answers your questions to your particular satisfaction.

I told you what happened to the people that died before Christianity.
I told you about their proximity and relationship to hell.
I told you why I am an atheist that appreciates Christianity.
I told you why I am an atheist that appreciates Mormonism.

You got pissed every time even though I gave you truthful answers. I am continuing to believe that when you ask a question that it doesn't mean anything. In the English language when you use a question mark at the end of a sentence it implies that you want an answer. Go back to school and learn English. At this current moment the two of us are speaking to entirely different languages.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Do you realize that a lot of the holidays we celebrate today are a mix of pagan, Christian and Jewish beliefs?

lol.....not this again......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Well, why would God put humans on the earth who did not believe in him? Because the earliest religious beliefs recorded were related to paganism, not Christianity. Even Judaism didn't come about until around 4000 years ago.

rofl......perhaps they didn't decide not to believe in him after he put them here.........ya think?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

What evidence? The fossils of early humans found. How can you not get it?

I don't have any of that stuff and I have no way to verify that the fossils are real. I'm just a regular Joe. I don't understand how any of that stuff works. I'll just have to take their word for it. I have to take it on faith because I don't possess the scientific knowledge to understand the things that they do. I simply believe it because it was written in a book. You are very fortunate that you have sufficient knowledge to verify their claims. I don't have that. I just have to take them at their word.

So, you think the scientists, archaeologists and others who discovered and studied these bones, which are well described and talked about in textbooks are lies or what?

that pretty much covers it yes......