My Thoughts on Religion

[Aventzger]

Hey, I know that religion is a very sensitive topic but this got me thinking. I'm a freethinker. Most freethinkers don't believe in a god. But I however believe in a god that is universal, caring for all of humanity regardless of race or religion. Is there anyone out there that share similar thoughts? I apologise if I happen to offend anyone.

[Elliott_hn]

I share similar thoughts. im not 'stuck' to believing one particular religion. in my opinion there is one god who cares for everyone.

[Babs]

I don't believe in God, however if I did, that is the god I would believe in. That's sort of how I felt when I was a christian. Not exactly but close.

[thatcountrykid]

I don't necessarily believe in a god it's more of I believe that there is a higher power of sorts that put us here for a reason and I guess I kinda follow along with the native Americans that believed coming across certain animals is an omen for example owls are bad. Like if I go fishing as respect to the, if they can live toss me back but if they won't they I will take me and not waste a single thing

[Southside]

Im Christian and I disagree, you can be a freethinker and still be religious. Although I believe in God/Christ I don't let the church or a pastor dictate my views on certain subjects.

And yes, I do share similar thoughts that its a God somewhere in the universe that controls certain things and cares.

[CosmicNoodle]

I'm just a through and through athiest who finds the topic of religion ludicrous

[deregisterme]

I've heard the term agnostic. I'm atheist, which means I have no religious beliefs. Agnostic belief don't follow any current religion or god per say, but do believe that there is more to live, that there is some sort of higher power out there

[Vlerchan]

Agnostic belief don't follow any current religion or god per say, but do believe that there is more to live, that there is some sort of higher power out there
That's more like 'Deist'.

Here's a concise explanation from Wikipedia:

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

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

[Bull]

[QUOTE=Southside;2904509]Im Christian and I disagree, you can be a freethinker and still be religious. Although I believe in God/Christ I don't let the church or a pastor dictate my views on certain subjects.

Spot on. I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church and do not agree with a lot of the positions it takes. My pastor is a narrow minded individual who lives in an imaginary world of his own making, so is totally out of touch with reality. In spite of his preaching against drinking, playing cards, mixed bathing (swimming), dancing, and doing any thing on Sunday but going to church is a sin, I, and my family along with many other families ignore his preaching and do all of his "sin". I enjoy going to church for the fellowship and the music, all of which inspire me. When it comes time for the sermon I just put my mind in neutral, or read the pew Bible. The Bible is much more of an inspiration and instruction for living than the negative words that seem to always spew forth from the preacher. PS I love the movie "Footloose" because it is so much like the situation here in western Oklahoma. ;)

[deadpie]

I would consider myself a freethinker and open minded.. I've experimented with different religions and spiritual ideas to develop my own form of spirituality through the inspiration of my favorite philosophers and the help of my NA meetings..

What's funny is I thought I was the most open minded person ever when I was a pissy militant atheist. Had to prove everyone wrong. Make everyone an atheist and know there's no point to life as well. That's fucking rude and stupid. How many dumb amazingatheist videos I watched and debates I got in bla bla bla, meant nothing lead to nothing resulted in nothing etc..

IDK it just got old and I met a friend who opened me a lot to meditation and learning how to BREATHE, because with my PTSD and shit it was hard.. I also found a religion to suite me and I think it's actually the best thing in my life now. Three and a half years ago I couldn't even sit next to a Christian. How stupid is that? Didn't matter if they were extreme or not.

Although, I do consider myself more on the deist side. I don't ask for things from my higher power, more so learn to give thanks every day even if it's a horrible day. I also believe that everyone and everything is connected like strings in all the infinite amounts of universes. I think a few of my psychedelic experiences carved that into my head against my will through insanity maybe... ?!?

I'm always open to new thoughts.. We grow and change as humans every day whether we like it or not. To believe you're done learning or have an answer that solves everything seems like a roadblock.

[Hollywood]

TWPR :arrow2: ROTW

This is a better fit here.

[Miserabilia]

There's alot of confusion to what the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" mean.

gnostic = knowing
agnostic = not knowing

theistic = beleiving in (a) god(s)
atheistic - not beleiving in (a) god(s)

example:

an agnostic atheist is someone who does not beleive in god, but does not know for sure he/she does not exist.

a gnostic theist is someone who beleives in their god, and know for sure he/she exist;

since you don't follow a particular god or beleive in a specific religion you'd best fit the tag of an agnostic theist.

[Stronk Serb]

I am a staunch atheist. The existence of a higher power is just ridiculous to me.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

Religion is just confusing to me.
Theistic thinking makes me feel terrified that someone's always watching me, even when I'm doing horrendously embarrassing things, but on the other hand, atheistic thinking makes me feel cold and alone.

I prefer to believ that there may be a god and there may not be, and also I don't really give a shit.

[Gigablue]

As many of you probably already know, I'm an atheist. I believe that all of the religions in existence have not met their burdens of proof, and I thus reject all their theological claims. While I do not assert that a god in some form is impossible, I find the likelihood that a god exists to be absurdly small.

Agnostic belief don't follow any current religion or god per say, but do believe that there is more to live, that there is some sort of higher power out there

Agnosticism addresses the issue of knowledge, not belief. The two are related, but distinct. One is either a theist or an atheist, and either a gnostic or an agnostic.

Theism/atheism addresses the statement: 'a god exists'. If you accept the statement as true, you are a theist, if you do not accept the statement (which is not the same thing as accepting that the opposite statement: 'no gods exist' is true) you are an atheist.

Gnosticism/agnosticism addresses whether you know that your answer to the aforementioned statement is correct. I you claim knowledge, you are a gnostic, while if you don't, you are agnostic.

Thus, there are four possible positions: gnostic theism (I know a god exists), agnostic theism (I believe a god exists, but do not claim knowledge), gnostic atheism (I know no gods exist) and agnostic atheism (I do not believe any gods exist, but do not claim knowledge.

[Gamma Male]

Hey, I know that religion is a very sensitive topic but this got me thinking. I'm a freethinker. Most freethinkers don't believe in a god. But I however believe in a god that is universal, caring for all of humanity regardless of race or religion. Is there anyone out there that share similar thoughts? I apologise if I happen to offend anyone.

Don't worry, this isn't offensive at all.

Now may I ask how you've come to this conclusion? What evidence do you have to support your theory?

[Vlerchan]

Thus, there are four possible positions: gnostic theism (I know a god exists), agnostic theism (I believe a god exists, but do not claim knowledge), gnostic atheism (I know no gods exist) and agnostic atheism (I do not believe any gods exist, but do not claim knowledge.
Well, there's positions beyond that:

Hard Agnosticism: the acceptance that we do not know if a god or gods exist or not and the consequent suspension of judgement; a belief neither-way. Bleid holds this position - I've always presumed.

There's also Ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) though I'm still a bit unsure what that entails so you're better off reading the Wiki page.

[Gigablue]

Hard Agnosticism: the acceptance that we do not know if a god or gods exist or not and the consequent suspension of judgement; a belief neither-way. Bleid holds this position - I've always presumed.

You can't have an in-between belief. You either accept that a god exists, or you do not. The two are logical opposites, and everyone must fall in one category of the other.

[Vlerchan]

You can't have an in-between belief. You either accept that a god exists, or you do not. The two are logical opposites, and everyone must fall in one category of the other.
I have no idea how you arrive at this conclusion.

It doesn't seem off to me that one might deduce that we don't have the information available to make an informed decision on the issue and then proceed to not take a definitive stance on the issue - adopting the label agnostic. It's also not a belief - it's more like a complete lack of belief.

[Gamma Male]

You can't have an in-between belief. You either accept that a god exists, or you do not. The two are logical opposites, and everyone must fall in one category of the other.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

You can believe that a God does exist.

You can believe that a God doesn't exist.

You can believe the probability of a God existing is about 50%.

You can lack any belief concerning God at all.

None are impossible or paradoxical views.

[Miserabilia]

I have no idea how you arrive at this conclusion.

It doesn't seem off to me that one might deduce that we don't have the information available to make an informed decision on the issue and then proceed to not take a definitive stance on the issue - adopting the label agnostic. It's also not a belief - it's more like a complete lack of belief.
Well, there's positions beyond that:

Hard Agnosticism: the acceptance that we do not know if a god or gods exist or not and the consequent suspension of judgement; a belief neither-way. Bleid holds this position - I've always presumed.

There's also Ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) though I'm still a bit unsure what that entails so you're better off reading the Wiki page.

I don't personaly see how it's humanly possible to have a half beleif.
How can you half beleive and half not beleive in god?
You can't say you only beleive in some aspects of a god, because then you still need a god for those aspects to exist.
See what I mean?
A human being can't have an exact 50% neutral beleif on something they know anything about, we're not machines, we take a side. Maybe it's 50.0001%, or 49.99999%, but never exactly 50.

I would like to se an attempt to describe the exact beleif of a hard agnostic; it just seems impossible to me,
if it means what the word seems to mean.

A complete lack of beleif would make someone an atheist, regardless if they are agnostic or gnostic.




How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

You can believe that a God does exist.

You can believe that a God doesn't exist.

You can believe the probability of a God existing is about 50%.

You can lack any belief concerning God at all.

None are impossible or paradoxical views.

That seems logical, but now you are talking about probablity, and not beleif; probablity is about gnosticism and agnosticism, and beleif about theism and atheism.

You can not beleive in a god and say the probablity of him existing is about 50%, and you'd be an agnostic atheist, not a hard agnostic.

Again, please explain to me how that would work.

[Vlerchan]

I don't personaly see how it's humanly possible to have a half beleif.
You'll have to explain how hard agnosticism is a 'half belief'.

The rest of your response indicates that you don't understand what it is.

A complete lack of beleif would make someone an atheist, regardless if they are agnostic or gnostic.

An atheist disbelieves in the existence of a god - regardless of whether that's prefixed with 'gnostic' or agnostic'.

Let's get back to my earlier definition:

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

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

[Miserabilia]

You'll have to explain how hard agnosticism is a 'half belief'.

The rest of your response indicates that you don't understand what it is.



An atheist disbelieves in the existence of a god - regardless of whether that's prefixed with 'gnostic' or agnostic'.

Let's get back to my earlier definition:

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

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

you said
a belief neither-way

How can a human truly beleive neither way? No intelligent human being is completely neutral on anything they have knowledge of. You always tend a little to one side or the other.
That's what I meant.

[Vlerchan]

How can a human truly beleive neither way? No intelligent human being is completely neutral on anything they have knowledge of.
The thing is, we have no* 'knowledge' (evidence) that validates either position (theism/atheism).

It's not so strange to consider a non-position once that's considered.

[Miserabilia]

The thing is, we have no* 'knowledge' (evidence) that validates either position (theism/atheism).

It's not so strange to consider a non-position once that's considered.

Sure, it's completely logical, but I don't think it's possible for a human being to think that way. I mean that I don't think any human can be completely neutral on something they have knowledge on (pick neither sides), unless they don't care at all.

[Vlerchan]

Sure, it's completely logical, but I don't think it's possible for a human being to think that way.
I'm again going to cite Bleid (we really do need the mention tag-thing) as someone here who seems to hold a hard agnostic position.

---

I also don't believe that it's impossible for individuals to not make decisions when no data indicating a 'correct' position is in existence - or is known.

I, for example, don't have an opinion of whether or not (cultural) diversity within an economy brings efficiency gains, because I've seen no evidence indicating either way. I'm aware that it could possibly do so and it could possibly not do so - but regardless I'm not prepared to make a decision on the matter until I gain access to relevant data. I am a hard agnostic in regards to the question of 'cultural diversity and economic efficiency'.

[Gamma Male]

That seems logical, but now you are talking about probablity, and not beleif;
No, I'm talking about belief in different probabilitys.
You can believe that the probability of God existing is about 100%, 50%, 0%, etc. Regardless of how you decide to label each individual belief(agnosticism, atheism, hard gnosticism, whatever), none are paradoxical or impossible beliefs. Which are true is irrelevant.
probablity is about gnosticism and agnosticism, and beleif about theism and atheism.
Absolute belief is just belief in an absolute probability. Either 0% or 100%. It's no different than belief in any other probability, or lack of any belief whatsoever.
You can not beleive in a god and say the probablity of him existing is about 50%, and you'd be an agnostic atheist, not a hard agnostic.

Again, please explain to me how that would work.

I'm not really sure about what beliefs match with what labels. Arguments over rhetoric and language don't really interest me.

[Pulp501]

I'm a Christian and I believe that God loves everyone, but that doesn't mean he will let you into heaven. I still believe that you have to accept Jesus as your lord and savior. I also think that the bible can't be completely relied on as it was written by man, and I try not to just blindly follow the church. I also wish people would respect others religious beliefs. It's sometimes hard to have friends with different religions because I know they won't go to heaven according to my beliefs, but it's their life.

[Gigablue]

I have no idea how you arrive at this conclusion.

It doesn't seem off to me that one might deduce that we don't have the information available to make an informed decision on the issue and then proceed to not take a definitive stance on the issue - adopting the label agnostic. It's also not a belief - it's more like a complete lack of belief.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

You can believe that a God does exist.

You can believe that a God doesn't exist.

You can believe the probability of a God existing is about 50%.

You can lack any belief concerning God at all.

None are impossible or paradoxical views.

I wasn't clear enough. With respect to the statement 'a god exists', you either accept the statement as true, or do not accept the statement as true. There is no in-between. Obviously, with respect to other statements, or with respect to how people self identify, there are other options. But, with respect to the above statement, there are only two options.

[Gamma Male]

I wasn't clear enough. With respect to the statement 'a god exists', you either accept the statement as true, or do not accept the statement as true. There is no in-between. Obviously, with respect to other statements, or with respect to how people self identify, there are other options. But, with respect to the above statement, there are only two options.

Yes, but not accepting the statement "A God exists" doesn't necessarily mean you believe the polar opposite.

If we assume the statement "A God exists" to mean the probability God exists is absolute, 100%, and I believe that the probability of God existing is closer to about 90%-99% or so, than I disagree with the statement, but I don't believe the polar opposite, that the probability of a God existing is 0%.

The same is true in reverse. Disagreeing with the statement "A God does not exist" doesn't make me a hard theist, it just means I believe the probability of God existing is lower than 100%.

[Bleid]

Sure, it's completely logical, but I don't think it's possible for a human being to think that way. I mean that I don't think any human can be completely neutral on something they have knowledge on (pick neither sides), unless they don't care at all.

I'll explain, then.

To the part of the quote I emphasized:
I may have knowledge of the concepts surrounding God, and what it would mean for there to be a God, and the implications of there being the various forms of God.

This however, does not necessarily mean I get pulled to one side or the other of whether or not there (is a/are) God(s).
When I consider the existence of a God and the many arguments I've heard for those who believe there is a God and those who believe there is not a God, I simply am not convinced in either direction.

I am not convinced by anything of the nature of:

Isn't all the world so impressive and beautiful? Mustn't it have come from intelligent design? Isn't it hard to believe that the world simply came out of nothing? Didn't it need a beginning?

I am also not convinced by anything of the nature of:

Wouldn't you say it's incredibly unlikely for there to be a God considering the fact that we've seen no evidence of there being a God and we're merely on one tiny planet out of many in one small solar system out of many in one galaxy out of many? And isn't evolution enough of an explanation for our life to be here? Doesn't science demonstrate to you that it's unlikely that there is a supreme being?

Since, both of the above quoted sections are littered with fallacious reasoning that is easily shown.

And I've found it to be the same case for the many other arguments I've heard for each respective side of the fence.
Consequently, I do not sway towards there being a God, and I do not sway towards there not being a God. I simply maintain that I see no justification that would incite me to believe one way or the other.

But, I am open to the day that something comes up that is rationally satisfying for why I should lean more towards either atheistic or theistic beliefs.

[JustJordan]

I'll explain, then.

To the part of the quote I emphasized:
I may have knowledge of the concepts surrounding God, and what it would mean for there to be a God, and the implications of there being the various forms of God.

This however, does not necessarily mean I get pulled to one side or the other of whether or not there (is a/are) God(s).
When I consider the existence of a God and the many arguments I've heard for those who believe there is a God and those who believe there is not a God, I simply am not convinced in either direction.

I am not convinced by anything of the nature of:



I am also not convinced by anything of the nature of:



Since, both of the above quoted sections are littered with fallacious reasoning that is easily shown.

And I've found it to be the same case for the many other arguments I've heard for each respective side of the fence.
Consequently, I do not sway towards there being a God, and I do not sway towards there not being a God. I simply maintain that I see no justification that would incite me to believe one way or the other.

But, I am open to the day that something comes up that is rationally satisfying for why I should lean more towards either atheistic or theistic beliefs.
I am a Christian and I understand what you are saying but I still find it illogical to be in between belief and non belief. I have faith that there is a God and if I was to just have half belief in Him I don't believe that I would have any more of a chance of getting to heaven than an Atheist would. It's almost like circling two answers on a multiple choice test because you are not sure which is right, you will inevitably get the question wrong.
~Cheers, Jordan

[Bleid]

I am a Christian and I understand what you are saying but I still find it illogical to be in between belief and non belief. I have faith that there is a God and if I was to just have half belief in Him I don't believe that I would have any more of a chance of getting to heaven than an Atheist would. It's almost like circling two answers on a multiple choice test because you are not sure which is right, you will inevitably get the question wrong.
~Cheers, Jordan

I wholly understand and thank you for your concern. I also agree that if I have merely half-belief in God that I would not be allowed entry into Heaven and would be on equal footing with an atheist as far as He is concerned.

That being said, I would have to ask that He forgives my ignorance if He is watching me with disappointment. For, I do not hold suspension of judgement out of contempt for Him.
I hold to this because it is what my use of reasoning has brought me to in my search to determine if I ought to believe in His existence. If it was in error and I am just a fool, then I'll gladly take the responsibility of going to Hell for my incompetence.

The only thing I would have to say for myself on judgement day is that I thought I was doing best by using the tool of reason that He gave me.

[JustJordan]

I wholly understand and thank you for your concern. I also agree that if I have merely half-belief in God that I would not be allowed entry into Heaven and would be on equal footing with an atheist as far as He is concerned.

That being said, I would have to ask that He forgives my ignorance if He is watching me with disappointment. For, I do not hold suspension of judgement out of contempt for Him.
I hold to this because it is what my use of reasoning has brought me to in my search to determine if I ought to believe in His existence. If it was in error and I am just a fool, then I'll gladly take the responsibility of going to Hell for my incompetence.

The only thing I would have to say for myself on judgement day is that I thought I was doing best by using the tool of reason that He gave me.


I understand you bro, I hope I didn't come accross as trying to force a decision on you as in the end you decide your own beliefs. Good luck with whatever choice you make and thanks for understanding me and replying honestly and sensibly.
~Jordan

[Bleid]

I understand you bro, I hope I didn't come accross as trying to force a decision on you as in the end you decide your own beliefs. Good luck with whatever choice you make and thanks for understanding me and replying honestly and sensibly.
~Jordan

You didn't come off that way at all. In fact, the approach reminded me of the approach Blaise Pascal takes in his Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager).

Thank you for your good will and understanding, and of course, for responding honestly and sensibly yourself. Good luck to you, too.

[morsar]

I'm with the Klingons from Star Trek: gods are more trouble than they're worth.

[Miserabilia]

I'll explain, then.

To the part of the quote I emphasized:
I may have knowledge of the concepts surrounding God, and what it would mean for there to be a God, and the implications of there being the various forms of God.

This however, does not necessarily mean I get pulled to one side or the other of whether or not there (is a/are) God(s).
When I consider the existence of a God and the many arguments I've heard for those who believe there is a God and those who believe there is not a God, I simply am not convinced in either direction.

I am not convinced by anything of the nature of:



I am also not convinced by anything of the nature of:



Since, both of the above quoted sections are littered with fallacious reasoning that is easily shown.

And I've found it to be the same case for the many other arguments I've heard for each respective side of the fence.
Consequently, I do not sway towards there being a God, and I do not sway towards there not being a God. I simply maintain that I see no justification that would incite me to believe one way or the other.

But, I am open to the day that something comes up that is rationally satisfying for why I should lean more towards either atheistic or theistic beliefs.

I'm again going to cite Bleid (we really do need the mention tag-thing) as someone here who seems to hold a hard agnostic position.

---

I also don't believe that it's impossible for individuals to not make decisions when no data indicating a 'correct' position is in existence - or is known.

I, for example, don't have an opinion of whether or not (cultural) diversity within an economy brings efficiency gains, because I've seen no evidence indicating either way. I'm aware that it could possibly do so and it could possibly not do so - but regardless I'm not prepared to make a decision on the matter until I gain access to relevant data. I am a hard agnostic in regards to the question of 'cultural diversity and economic efficiency'.


No, I'm talking about belief in different probabilitys.
You can believe that the probability of God existing is about 100%, 50%, 0%, etc.

Exactly, and beleif in probabilities is not the same as beleif as in faith;
probabilities are objective and can be measured or calculated unlike beleif which relies on faith.
No matter what my beleif in a probability is (which is strange in the first place, as probability isn't that subjective),
my theism or atheism is determined by my actual beleif in god;
I can't say I beleive 60% in god, even if I beleive there is a 60% chance of him existing.

A hard agnostic would be a gnostic agnostic; someone that knows that they don't know if god exists;
their answer to "does god exist" would be "I don't know'.
What would there answer be to "do you beleive god exist?"

Would it be "I don't know that either"
In that case, I wonder,
how can you not know what you beleive?
What neutral beleif is there that is not one or the other?
I'm honestly confused by that idea.

[Vlerchan]

Would it be "I don't know that either".
No, it would be more like: "I have not encountered the data that would incite me to take a stance on the issue" or as Bleid put it: "I see no justification that would incite me to believe one way or the other."

how can you not know what you beleive?
It's not about not knowing what to believe, it's about not having the knowledge to make a decision on your beliefs.

---

I also find the problem between me and Gigablue to be that he sees the statement 'a god exists' as responsive to only some yes-no binary, whilst I don't. I'm cool to leave it though since xe* does accept that positions beyond theism and atheism exist - and that was my point the whole time.

* Aside, how would you prefer I refer to you (he/she/xe/other)? I know one guy on another forum who declares agender, but he's never offered a preference.

[Miserabilia]

No, it would be more like: "I have not encountered the data that would incite me to take a stance on the issue" or as Bleid put it: "I see no justification that would incite me to believe one way or the other."


It's not about not knowing what to believe, it's about not having the knowledge to make a decision on your beliefs.




Right; making a decision on your beleifs.
Hard agnosticism is not a beleif; you don't beleive god exist and you don't beleive god doesn't exist.
The answer to "do you beleive in god?" would be no.
Anything outside of theism is atheism;
the moment you don't directly beleive that a god exists you are an atheist.
the moment the answer to that question is no,
you'd think that would make you an atheist,
even if agnostic atheist.
See what I mean???? :o

[Gamma Male]

Exactly, and beleif in probabilities is not the same as beleif as in faith;
probabilities are objective and can be measured or calculated unlike beleif which relies on faith.
No matter what my beleif in a probability is (which is strange in the first place, as probability isn't that subjective),
my theism or atheism is determined by my actual beleif in god;
I can't say I beleive 60% in god, even if I beleive there is a 60% chance of him existing.

A hard agnostic would be a gnostic agnostic; someone that knows that they don't know if god exists;
their answer to "does god exist" would be "I don't know'.
What would there answer be to "do you beleive god exist?"

Would it be "I don't know that either"
In that case, I wonder,
how can you not know what you beleive?
What neutral beleif is there that is not one or the other?
I'm honestly confused by that idea.

Their answer would be no. Because to say they believe that God exists would imply that they believe the probability of him existing is 100%, and a gnostic agnostic, who believes it's impossible to know, would be at exactly 50%. I've already explained(In a different thread) that disagreeing with the statement "A God exists" does not mean you believe the polar opposite, but rather that you believe the probability of him existing is lower than 100%, which is what the statement implies.

[Vlerchan]

Anything outside of theism is atheism;
According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

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

I have no idea why people think this question is responsive to only a yes-no binary. Here's the possible responses:

Yes (gnostic theist).
Probably (agnostic theist)
I am not in a position to make that judgement (agnostic)
Probably not (agnostic atheist)
No (gnostic atheist)
Saying I don't believe in god does not infer I don't believe god exists.

[Miserabilia]

Their answer would be no. Because to say they believe that God exists would imply that they believe the probability of him existing is 100%, and a gnostic agnostic, who believes it's impossible to know, would be at exactly 50%. I've already explained(In a different thread) that disagreeing with the statement "A God exists" does not mean you believe the polar opposite, but rather that you believe the probability of him existing is lower than 100%, which is what the statement implies.

Their answer would be no.

That would make them an agnostic atheist, despite;

. I've already explained(In a different thread) that disagreeing with the statement "A God exists" does not mean you believe the polar opposite, but rather that you believe the probability of him existing is lower than 100%, which is what the statement implies.

that polar opposite you mention is hard atheism.
I've yet to see a difference between agnostic athiesm and hard agnosticism.

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

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

I have no idea why people think this question is responsive to only a yes-no binary. Here's the possible responses:

Yes (gnostic theist).
Probably (agnostic theist)
I am not in a position to make that judgement (agnostic)
Probably not (agnostic atheist)
No (gnostic atheist)
Saying I don't believe in god does not infer I don't believe god exists.

"I am not a position to make that judgment" is something one might say,
but not something one beleives if they have information.

[Bleid]

I've yet to see a difference between agnostic athiesm and hard agnosticism

I believe that the reason this is difficult is because of a misunderstanding of what the "a" on "a-theist" actually means.

I think it would help to understand the origin of the term "atheist" to see why agnostic atheism differs from hard agnosticism.

These terms linguistically originate in the context of predicate logic. Specifically, we'll look at "theism" first.
When someone asserts that they are a theist, this implies that they hold to theism.

Theism in the most precise sense is the belief in the truth of the statement:
"There exists at least one x such that x is God."

In symbolic predicate notation:
∃x (x = God)

Now, the intention that linguists had upon adding on the "a" to the front of "theism" is not to negate the fact that there is a belief. This is why there is still an "ism" suffix at the end of "atheism."

The intention they had was to add a negation to the truth of the predicate logic statement that the belief regards. In this case, we add a logical negation "¬" to the front of the theistic belief-statement and thus we are left with negated theism (atheism).

¬∃x (x = God)

This sentence translates exactly as:

"There does not exist at least one x such that x is God."
It does not translate as:
"Lack of belief in (There exists at least one x such that x is God.)"

_____________________________________________________________

And even just from an analytic perspective, to have the idea of "gnostic" or "agnostic" atheism does not even make sense if atheism is merely lack of belief.

Considering agnosticism is to claim lack of knowing, and gnosticism is to claim a presence of knowing, it would look ridiculous to apply them to lack of belief:

I claim to know that my (lack of belief in the existence of God(s)) is correct.
I claim not to know that my (lack of belief in the existence of God(s)) is correct.

Then consider the correct:

I claim to know that my (belief that there is not a God) is correct. (gnostic atheism)
I claim not to know that my (belief that there is not a God) is correct. (agnostic atheism)

This is why there is theism (God believing), atheism (God disbelieving) as well as agnostic/gnostic to modify those two. Then there's hard agnosticism for those who are not pushing towards either theism or atheism.


*The list Vlerchan provided at the top of this page is the best way to think about it.

[Aajj333]

"If you live life morally you go to heaven" well ok I better be good. Wait, you want me to murder people in warm wont I go to hell? "No thats the exception". I have a very great idea on how we can live more peacefully and in harmony, even though it threaten your ruling. "Dont do that, it is a sin." I dont want to give women respect. "The bible says that they dont need any." I want to enslave this minority. "Go right ahead, the bible is allowing of that." I dont agree with homosexuality. "Its a sin, we dont have to give them any rights."

Religion is a way for a ruler to justify his actions by blindly brainwashing his subjects. The bible is still used as a weapon to twist people's minds. Imagine a world where people didnt have a reason for war, a reason for racism, a reason for hate, a reason for homophobia.

[JustJordan]

"If you live life morally you go to heaven" well ok I better be good. Wait, you want me to murder people in warm wont I go to hell? "No thats the exception". I have a very great idea on how we can live more peacefully and in harmony, even though it threaten your ruling. "Dont do that, it is a sin." I dont want to give women respect. "The bible says that they dont need any." I want to enslave this minority. "Go right ahead, the bible is allowing of that." I dont agree with homosexuality. "Its a sin, we dont have to give them any rights."

Religion is a way for a ruler to justify his actions by blindly brainwashing his subjects. The bible is still used as a weapon to twist people's minds. Imagine a world where people didnt have a reason for war, a reason for racism, a reason for hate, a reason for homophobia.
The Bible says that access to heaven is granted based on belief in Christ not moral living, I have never read any part of the Bible talking about disrespecting women or advocating of the enslavement of a minority. Have you ever opened a Bible and read it for yourself? Or are you just going off of the stereotypes that you have learnt from others?

[Gamma Male]

I believe that the reason this is difficult is because of a misunderstanding of what the "a" on "a-theist" actually means.

I think it would help to understand the origin of the term "atheist" to see why agnostic atheism differs from hard agnosticism.

These terms linguistically originate in the context of predicate logic. Specifically, we'll look at "theism" first.
When someone asserts that they are a theist, this implies that they hold to theism.

Theism in the most precise sense is the belief in the truth of the statement:
"There exists at least one x such that x is God."

In symbolic predicate notation:
∃x (x = God)

Now, the intention that linguists had upon adding on the "a" to the front of "theism" is not to negate the fact that there is a belief. This is why there is still an "ism" suffix at the end of "atheism."

The intention they had was to add a negation to the truth of the predicate logic statement that the belief regards. In this case, we add a logical negation "¬" to the front of the theistic belief-statement and thus we are left with negated theism (atheism).

¬∃x (x = God)

This sentence translates exactly as:

"There does not exist at least one x such that x is God."
It does not translate as:
"Lack of belief in (There exists at least one x such that x is God.)"

_____________________________________________________________

And even just from an analytic perspective, to have the idea of "gnostic" or "agnostic" atheism does not even make sense if atheism is merely lack of belief.

Considering agnosticism is to claim lack of knowing, and gnosticism is to claim a presence of knowing, it would look ridiculous to apply them to lack of belief:

I claim to know that my (lack of belief in the existence of God(s)) is correct.
I claim not to know that my (lack of belief in the existence of God(s)) is correct.

Then consider the correct:

I claim to know that my (belief that there is not a God) is correct. (gnostic atheism)
I claim not to know that my (belief that there is not a God) is correct. (agnostic atheism)

This is why there is theism (God believing), atheism (God disbelieving) as well as agnostic/gnostic to modify those two. Then there's hard agnosticism for those who are not pushing towards either theism or atheism.


*The list Vlerchan provided at the top of this page is the best way to think about it.

You see, this is why I prefer the term Antitheist. It's just so much simpler.


I have never read any part of the Bible talking about disrespecting women or advocating of the enslavement of a minority.

I have. Maybe you just haven't read it thoroughly enough.

[Lovelife090994]

You see, this is why I prefer the term Antitheist. It's just so much simpler.




I have. Maybe you just haven't read it thoroughly enough.

Okay you do realize the Bible is two conglomorate religious books in one right, and how now any use of it for unfairness is ruled wrong right? I've read the Bible and it is not used today like ISIS uses the Quran. In fact I'd say the Bible speaks against that. The Bible speaks against those who use it for anything other than love. We are all God's children, if you can't see that then take it up to God.

The Bible says that access to heaven is granted based on belief in Christ not moral living, I have never read any part of the Bible talking about disrespecting women or advocating of the enslavement of a minority. Have you ever opened a Bible and read it for yourself? Or are you just going off of the stereotypes that you have learnt from others?

Plus, the Bible speaks against those who use the Bible for evil! Some books don't do that.

[PinkFloyd]

Yeah, I think I feel the same way. I believe that there's a higher power that wants nothing more than for humanity to do good things and respect each other, no strings attached. You know, a god that isn't going to send you to a fiery eternity because you had sex before you were married or because you did basically what I'm doing now.... (saying his name in vein.)

I'm sorry if that offended anyone. I'm in kind of a sassy mood right now and don't know why.

EDIT: I did some thinking and decided that the god I believe in frowns upon bumper stickers promoting him.

[Miserabilia]

Then there's hard agnosticism for those who are not pushing towards either theism or atheism.



I'm still confused though.
A gnostic atheist is someone who "knows" there is no god, so doesn't beleive in one, and beleives that it's a fact that god does not exist.
Right?

And an agnostic atheist is someone who does not beleive in god, but doesn't "know" either way.
Right?

So a hard agnostic, is someone who is agnostic, which means they don't know either side or hold either side as fact, etc etc.
Right?

Since atheism is not beleiving god does NOT exist but it simply -theism, or idk how you put it that looked better, but that;

then wouldn't a hard agnostic, being someone that does not actively beleive a god exist, be an atheist?

I know I'm a little slow understanding here but I have things to learn :P
Please explain,
because this is how I'm seeing it now]

edit: making a little graph to try to visualize what I mean
http://oi60.tinypic.com/nxl6dz.jpg

ok I'm going to use this thing I made in pait to explain why the idea of hard gnosticism seems impossible.

The center grey circle represents agnosticism; not knowing, not taking it as fact, not having sufficient evidence, whatever, etc etc etc.
The reason this circle is at the center is that the central line is more neutral area, someone who KNOWS god exists would not be close to not beleiving in god, hence agnosticism at the center more neutral part of the graph and gnosticism at the edges.

To determine what side of the border one's on, they can ask "do I beleive in god"?
Yes brings them on the right side (theism), no brings them on the left side (atheism).

To determine what side of the circle one's on, they can ask "do I know god does (not) exist?"
Yes brings them to the edges, no brings them inside the circle.
(Optionaly neutral brings them on the edge of the circle)

So let's say you claim to be hard agnostic and do this.
"Do I beleive in god"?
The answer is no, as they don't actively beleive in god.
"Do I know he does (not) exist?"
Is neutral, so you are placed on the edge of the circle.

This would be where they were placed, between gnostic and agnostic atheist.
http://oi58.tinypic.com/2ykezqs.jpg

Because if you think about it, how could you be a hard agnostic? Someone who actively has no beleifs on it would be an atheist, you can't be a hard agnostic on this graph becaus eyou would have to be in two places at the same time.

Could you try explaining it with a graph or something visual? Because my brain is hurting now xD
:P

[Bleid]

You see, this is why I prefer the term Antitheist. It's just so much simpler.

Mhm. Certainly.

I'm still confused though.
A gnostic atheist is someone who "knows" there is no god, so doesn't beleive in one, and beleives that it's a fact that god does not exist.

Right?

Exactly.

And an agnostic atheist is someone who does not beleive in god, but doesn't "know" either way.
Right?

An agnostic atheist is someone who believes there isn't a God, but doesn't claim that he knows this to be a fact. "It's likely to be that there isn't a God." would be something an agnostic atheist would say.

So a hard agnostic, is someone who is agnostic, which means they don't know either side or hold either side as fact, etc etc.
Right?

The hard agnostic would say, "I don't believe it is likely that there is or isn't a God."

Since atheism is not beleiving god does NOT exist but it simply -theism, or idk how you put it that looked better, but that;

then wouldn't a hard agnostic, being someone that does not actively beleive a god exist, be an atheist?


Almost - a hard agnostic simply lacks the belief that there is and also lacks belief that there isn't a God, where the atheist holds that it is at least likely for there to be no God.


I know I'm a little slow understanding here but I have things to learn :P
Please explain,
because this is how I'm seeing it now

Oh, you're not slow to understanding. It's just a bit subtle in the differences.

edit: making a little graph to try to visualize what I mean
image (http://oi60.tinypic.com/nxl6dz.jpg)

ok I'm going to use this thing I made in pait to explain why the idea of hard gnosticism seems impossible.

The center grey circle represents agnosticism; not knowing, not taking it as fact, not having sufficient evidence, whatever, etc etc etc.
The reason this circle is at the center is that the central line is more neutral area, someone who KNOWS god exists would not be close to not beleiving in god, hence agnosticism at the center more neutral part of the graph and gnosticism at the edges.

To determine what side of the border one's on, they can ask "do I beleive in god"?
Yes brings them on the right side (theism), no brings them on the left side (atheism).

To determine what side of the circle one's on, they can ask "do I know god does (not) exist?"
Yes brings them to the edges, no brings them inside the circle.
(Optionaly neutral brings them on the edge of the circle)

So let's say you claim to be hard agnostic and do this.
"Do I beleive in god"?
The answer is no, as they don't actively beleive in god.
"Do I know he does (not) exist?"
Is neutral, so you are placed on the edge of the circle.

This would be where they were placed, between gnostic and agnostic atheist.
image (http://oi58.tinypic.com/2ykezqs.jpg)

Because if you think about it, how could you be a hard agnostic? Someone who actively has no beleifs on it would be an atheist, you can't be a hard agnostic on this graph becaus eyou would have to be in two places at the same time.

Could you try explaining it with a graph or something visual? Because my brain is hurting now xD
:P

Yeah, of course. I'll do that. I think I understand where the confusion is.

Here you are, in the form of a venn diagram:

http://i59.tinypic.com/2a4pj0l.jpg

Green is Atheism as a whole.
Blue is Theism as a whole.
Purple is Agnosticism as a whole.

Where the green overlaps the purple is Agnostic Atheism.
Where the blue overlaps the purple is Agnostic Theism.

[Mushin]

image (http://i59.tinypic.com/2a4pj0l.jpg)

I want to take this venn diagram and run around stapling it to people's foreheads. Thank you.

[Bleid]

I want to take this venn diagram and run around stapling it to people's foreheads. Thank you.

You're welcome.

[JustJordan]

You see, this is why I prefer the term Antitheist. It's just so much simpler.




I have. Maybe you just haven't read it thoroughly enough.

Care to give me an example?

[Gamma Male]

Care to give me an example?

Of course. Keep in mind that I mean you no disrespect, I just think the bible is utter nonsense written by pedophilic mass murdering cult leaders and/or madmen. Just like the Quran.



"Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)




"Then Jehu called a meeting of all the people of the city and said to them, "Ahab hardly worshiped Baal at all compared to the way I will worship him! Summon all the prophets and worshipers of Baal, and call together all his priests. See to it that every one of them comes, for I am going to offer a great sacrifice to Baal. Any of Baal's worshipers who fail to come will be put to death." But Jehu's plan was to destroy all the worshipers of Baal. Then Jehu ordered, "Prepare a solemn assembly to worship Baal!" So they did. He sent messengers throughout all Israel summoning those who worshiped Baal. They all came and filled the temple of Baal from one end to the other. And Jehu instructed the keeper of the wardrobe, "Be sure that every worshiper of Baal wears one of these robes." So robes were given to them"

"Then Jehu went into the temple of Baal with Jehonadab son of Recab. Jehu said to the worshipers of Baal, "Make sure that only those who worship Baal are here. Don't let anyone in who worships the LORD!" So they were all inside the temple to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings. Now Jehu had surrounded the building with eighty of his men and had warned them, "If you let anyone escape, you will pay for it with your own life."

"As soon as Jehu had finished sacrificing the burnt offering, he commanded his guards and officers, "Go in and kill all of them. Don't let a single one escape!" So they killed them all with their swords, and the guards and officers dragged their bodies outside. Then Jehu's men went into the fortress of the temple of Baal. They dragged out the sacred pillar used in the worship of Baal and destroyed it. They broke down the sacred pillar of Baal and wrecked the temple of Baal, converting it into a public toilet. That is what it is used for to this day." 2 Kings 10:18-27 NLT





When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)



If you refuse to obey all the terms of this law that are written in this book, and if you do not fear the glorious and awesome name of the LORD your God, then the LORD will overwhelm both you and your children with indescribable plagues. These plagues will be intense and without relief, making you miserable and unbearably sick. He will bring against you all the diseases of Egypt that you feared so much, and they will claim you. The LORD will bring against you every sickness and plague there is, even those not mentioned in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed. Though you are as numerous as the stars in the sky, few of you will be left because you would not listen to the LORD your God. "Just as the LORD has found great pleasure in helping you to prosper and multiply, the LORD will find pleasure in destroying you, until you disappear from the land you are about to enter and occupy. For the LORD will scatter you among all the nations from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship foreign gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods made of wood and stone! There among those nations you will find no place of security and rest. And the LORD will cause your heart to tremble, your eyesight to fail, and your soul to despair. Your lives will hang in doubt. You will live night and day in fear, with no reason to believe that you will see the morning light. In the morning you will say, 'If only it were night!' And in the evening you will say, 'If only it were morning!' You will say this because of your terror at the awesome horrors you see around you. Then the LORD will send you back to Egypt in ships, a journey I promised you would never again make. There you will offer to sell yourselves to your enemies as slaves, but no one will want to buy you. (Deuteronomy 28:58-68 NLT)



"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29



"While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was discovered gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who caught him at it brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly. But they kept him in custody, for there was no clear decision as to what should be done with him. Then the Lord said to Moses, "This man shall be put to death; let the whole community stone him outside the camp." So the whole community led him outside the camp and stoned him to death as the Lord had commanded Moses." Numbers 15:32-36 NAB



"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21:20-21 NAB







That's mainly just the old testament. Of course, you could always use the old "that doesn't apply anymore!" excuse, but then you would have to regard every verse in the old testament as always being invalid. I don't see ow you can say which ones are valid and which aren't simply because some of them make the bible look bad and some don't. That hardly makes sense.

Oh, and despite what you've heard there are plenty of new testament verses that are equally bad.


1st Corinthians 14:34 NASB

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak.


“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.”
Colossians 3:18



Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ ...(Ephesians 6:5)



Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."(so basically gays and atheists are all going to hell to be tortured for all eternity.)



Now, I realize that the bible has a lot of happy, good, love thy neighbor type verses too. But those don't cancel out the bad ones. They only prove the bible is inconsistent and full of contradictions. It's not just the bible either, I could point out just as many verses in the Quran and teachings in eastern religions that are just as bad.

[Miserabilia]

Mhm. Certainly.



Exactly.



An agnostic atheist is someone who believes there isn't a God, but doesn't claim that he knows this to be a fact. "It's likely to be that there isn't a God." would be something an agnostic atheist would say.



The hard agnostic would say, "I don't believe it is likely that there is or isn't a God."




Almost - a hard agnostic simply lacks the belief that there is and also lacks belief that there isn't a God, where the atheist holds that it is at least likely for there to be no God.




Oh, you're not slow to understanding. It's just a bit subtle in the differences.



Yeah, of course. I'll do that. I think I understand where the confusion is.

Here you are, in the form of a venn diagram:

image (http://i59.tinypic.com/2a4pj0l.jpg)

Green is Atheism as a whole.
Blue is Theism as a whole.
Purple is Agnosticism as a whole.

Where the green overlaps the purple is Agnostic Atheism.
Where the blue overlaps the purple is Agnostic Theism.

Ahhh ok that makes sense now,
concidering that an atheist is someone who holds it unlikely there is a god instead of just not beleiving it.
That fixes it.
I guess I'm an agnostic atheist then, leaning to hard agnosticism.

[JustJordan]

Of course. Keep in mind that I mean you no disrespect, I just think the bible is utter nonsense written by pedophilic mass murdering cult leaders and/or madmen. Just like the Quran
Now, I realize that the bible has a lot of happy, good, love thy neighbor type verses too. But those don't cancel out the bad ones. They only prove the bible is inconsistent and full of contradictions. It's not just the bible either, I could point out just as many verses in the Quran and teachings in eastern religions that are just as bad.

I will try to explain some of these from what I see, some of these verses puzzle me also but I have alot to learn being only 13.

For the verses about war and murder in war I don't view those as a sin as these wars were supported by God as sometimes evil can only be destroyed theough bloodshed sadly.
For the one about rape, in those days rape just referred to sex outside of marriage and the money the man was required to pay was not a fine for rape but a bridal price as the man was required to marry the woman as he had taken her virginity and it was customary to pay a fee to the bride's father before marriage.
Numbers 15: 32-36 : In those days it was a law that on the Sabbath they should rest and one verse speaks directly about the kindling of fire. Everyone knew this law and the result of disobedience which was death penalty. This indicates that while everyone else was resting this person was defiant and deliberately broke the law as he would have been aware of it. This is why I think God did not show mercy on him.
Exodus 21:20-21 : I see this verse as saying that if someone intentionally beats their slave to death they shall be punished because that is murder. However, if the slave is a live for a few days that indicates that the master did not mean to beat him to death but the slave still died as a result of the beating, similiar to manslaughter.
It is late so I won't bother to comment on the others right now but I see where you are coming from. The Old Testament (Jewish) 'portrait' of God is generally more fierce and unforgiving and if misunderstood or taken out of context can seem evil at times but one has to try to read and understand from the right point of view and research things that are not clear. No disrespect is intended towards you. :P
~Cheers, Jordan.

[Bleid]

Ahhh ok that makes sense now,
concidering that an atheist is someone who holds it unlikely there is a god instead of just not beleiving it.
That fixes it.
I guess I'm an agnostic atheist then, leaning to hard agnosticism.

Mhm. It's a very subtle difference which is very easy to misconstrue.

People hear atheism being negated theism and assume, "So it's just anything that isn't theism"?
When that's not the proper way to interpret the negation. Since, for example, deists are not theists, but they are also not atheists.

Similarly, people get confused with the subtle distinction between "believing something is not true" and "not believing in something."

But I agree with your assessment of your philosophy. From the posts of yours that I have read you do seem like you're an agnostic atheist bordering on hard agnosticism.

[DeadEyes]

But I however believe in a god that is universal, caring for all of humanity regardless of race or religion.

With the state the world is in, you can seriously believe that?

Im Christian and I disagree, you can be a freethinker and still be religious.

Religious endoctrinement and freethinking doesn't exactly go together.

I'm just a through and through athiest who finds the topic of religion ludicrous

Likewise.

[Southside]

With the state the world is in, you can seriously believe that?



Religious endoctrinement and freethinking doesn't exactly go together.


Likewise.

Maybe for some people they don't go together, even though I believe in the teachings of Christ I don't go around letting the church dictate my political opinions or anything.

An example, I'm Pro-Choice( though I don't necessarily support abortions, not from a religious standpoint but a moral standpoint)

[DeadEyes]

Maybe for some people they don't go together, even though I believe in the teachings of Christ I don't go around letting the church dictate my political opinions or anything.

An example, I'm Pro-Choice( though I don't necessarily support abortions, not from a religious standpoint but a moral standpoint)

Contradictory nonsense.

[Southside]

Contradictory nonsense.

How am I contradicting? I don't have tunnel vision just because I'm religious

Hell, even people of certain political parties don't have the capacity to be "freethinkers", but no one ever comments on them..Only religious folk.

[Bleid]

Contradictory nonsense.

Nothing in those statements is contradictory.

[Gamma Male]

How am I contradicting? I don't have tunnel vision just because I'm religious

Hell, even people of certain political parties don't have the capacity to be "freethinkers", but no one ever comments on them..Only religious folk.

Nothing in those statements is contradictory.

If he truly believed in teachings of the bible then he would have to let them dictate his life because that's kinda one of the major rules in the bible, to do what it says or face punishment.

Following the bible but not supporting slavery, Homophobia, religious imperialism, etc is very contradictory.

[DeadEyes]

Maybe for some people they don't go together, even though I believe in the teachings of Christ I don't go around letting the church dictate my political opinions or anything.

An example, I'm Pro-Choice( though I don't necessarily support abortions, not from a religious standpoint but a moral standpoint)

Religion and freethinking doesn't go together, period, that doesn't depend on people.
The so called teachings of Christ influence everything in the way you think and see life.
Your morality comes from your religion, not your own questioning.

How am I contradicting? I don't have tunnel vision just because I'm religious.

Nothing in those statements is contradictory.

Contradictory enough for you? If you fail to see the contradictions in your statement, then you just fail at logic.

Following the bible but not supporting slavery, Homophobia, religious imperialism, etc is very contradictory.

Very contradictory, to say the least (or just hypocritical).

Use the edit button to add in later responses; don't double post. ~Typhlosion

[Bleid]

If he truly believed in teachings of the bible then he would have to let them dictate his life because that's kinda one of the major rules in the bible, to do what it says or face punishment.

Following the bible but not supporting slavery, Homophobia, religious imperialism, etc is very contradictory.

At best, that is still not contradictory.

Contradictory enough for you? If you fail to see the contradictions in your statement, then you just fail at logic.

Still yet to be shown the contradiction, so feel free to take the time.

[Gamma Male]

At best, that is still not contradictory.



Still yet to be shown the contradiction, so feel free to take the time.

He claims to follow the bible. He does many things and endorses many things that are explicitly condemned in the bible. That is contradictory of him. I fail to see how I can be more clear than that.

[Bleid]

He claims to follow the bible. He does many things and endorses many things that are explicitly condemned in the bible. That is contradictory of him. I fail to see how I can be more clear than that.

I saw "teachings of Christ," but we can work with whatever you'd like.

That is at the absolute most, hypocritical.

Hypocrisy is not actual contradiction.

Maybe for some people they don't go together, even though I believe in the teachings of Christ I don't go around letting the church dictate my political opinions or anything.

An example, I'm Pro-Choice( though I don't necessarily support abortions, not from a religious standpoint but a moral standpoint)

This is the statement that was allegedly contradictory.

There simply isn't one within this.

[Gamma Male]

I saw "teachings of Christ," but we can work with whatever you'd like.

That is at the absolute most, hypocritical.

Hypocrisy is not actual contradiction.



This is the statement that was allegedly contradictory.

There simply isn't one within this.

con·tra·dic·to·ry
mutually opposed or inconsistent.
"the two attitudes are contradictory"


He claims to be a christian. He(for example) does not believe homosexuality to be unethical. The bible explicitly condemns homosexuality as unethical and commands it's followers to do the same, and to punish it with death.

He is a christian. He believes slavery to be unethical. He does not believe anyone has a right to own slaves. The bible explicitly endorses homosexuality and affirms the right of people to own slaves.

Explain how these are not contradictory positions.

[Bleid]

con·tra·dic·to·ry
mutually opposed or inconsistent.
"the two attitudes are contradictory"

He claims to be a christian. He(for example) does not believe homosexuality to be unethical. The bible explicitly condemns homosexuality as unethical and commands it's followers to do the same, and to punish it with death.

He is a christian. He believes slavery to be unethical. He does not believe anyone has a right to own slaves. The bible explicitly endorses homosexuality and affirms the right of people to own slaves.

Explain how these are not contradictory positions.

A contradiction is specifically when two concepts cannot be true (or false) at the same time.

What you gave there does not apply. It instead applies to hypocrisy, at most.

[Gamma Male]

A contradiction is specifically when two concepts cannot be true (or false) at the same time.

What you gave there does not apply. It instead applies to hypocrisy, at most.

Yes. The two things that cannot be true at the same time are "I follow the bible and am Christian" and "I (insert various belief explicitly condemned by the bible)".

I'm not saying this is bad or wrong. I much prefer hypocritical Christians who don't want to murder me for various reasons over nonhpyocritical Christians trying to stone me to death. I'm simply pointing out that to claim to follow the bible and be a christian while holding the viewpoints he holds is contradictory.


And furthermore, I find your insistence on differentiating between hypocritical and inconsistent pedantic and arguably obnoxious, considering you knew exactly what I meant and the actual difference between the two words is minor enough to have very little consequence on the conversation.

[jayjay's toocool]

im open minded which is why i believe in a singular definte God.

[Gamma Male]

im open minded which is why i believe in a singular definte God.

Were you raised by your parents to believe in a singular definite god?

[Bleid]

Yes. The two things that cannot be true at the same time are "I follow the bible and am Christian" and "I (insert various belief explicitly condemned by the bible)".

I'm not saying this is bad or wrong. I much prefer hypocritical Christians who don't want to murder me for various reasons over nonhpyocritical Christians trying to stone me to death. I'm simply pointing out that to claim to follow the bible and be a christian while holding the viewpoints he holds is contradictory.


And furthermore, I find your insistence on differentiating between hypocritical and inconsistent pedantic and arguably obnoxious, considering you knew exactly what I meant and the actual difference between the two words is minor enough to have very little consequence on the conversation.

And that is hypocrisy, not a contradiction. The difference is not minor, because a contradiction is a flaw of logic where hypocrisy is perfectly acceptable within logic.

[Gamma Male]

And that is hypocrisy, not a contradiction. The difference is not minor, because a contradiction is a flaw of logic where hypocrisy is perfectly acceptable within logic.

What he said can basically be summed up into this.

I believe in and follow the bible.

I do not follow the bible.



That is a contradiction.

[jayjay's toocool]

Were you raised by your parents to believe in a singular definite god?

Raised to believe monotheistic God. But i had learned by learning other religions and beliefs, i knew my parent were somewhat accurate of God.

[Southside]

He claims to follow the bible. He does many things and endorses many things that are explicitly condemned in the bible. That is contradictory of him. I fail to see how I can be more clear than that.


So where in the Bible does it forbid a Christian to support LGBT? Can you provide me with a verse?

I don't practice homosexuality or slavery. So yet again, I really don't understand how I'm being contradictory or hypocritical

My girlfriend is Bi/Pansexual..I don't get my opinions/beliefs on homosexuality from the Bible, I get them from myself. I don't know about you but I strongly believe in the saying "To each his own", meaning I could care less who you love or what you do with someone in private. I don't go around damning gays and shoving Bibles in their faces.

By the way,The Bible actually condones slavery, 1 Timothy 1:8-10:

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the slaw is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine"

So if someone is a Democrat is they don't support Obama they're right? Or if someone lives in the United States and they disapprove of the government they're contradictory too right?

[Gamma Male]

So where in the Bible does it forbid a Christian to support LGBT? Can you provide me with a verse?

I don't practice homosexuality or slavery. So yet again, I really don't understand how I'm being contradictory or hypocritical

My girlfriend is Bi/Pansexual..I don't get my opinions/beliefs on homosexuality from the Bible, I get them from myself. I don't know about you but I strongly believe in the saying "To each his own", meaning I could care less who you love or what you do with someone in private. I don't go around damning gays and shoving Bibles in their faces.

By the way,The Bible actually condones slavery, 1 Timothy 1:8-10:

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the slaw is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine"

So if someone is a Democrat is they don't support Obama they're right? Or if someone lives in the United States and they disapprove of the government they're contradictory too right?

I never said your beliefs were bad. I just said that it is hypocritical(happy bleid?) of you to claim to be a Christian and follow the bible while holding the positions you do. There's nothing wrong with that. But bleid claimed that wasn't contradictory and I felt the need to correct him.

[Bleid]

What he said can basically be summed up into this.

I believe in and follow the bible.

I do not follow the bible.



That is a contradiction.


Ah, I see the issue.

Again, what you just described is hypocrisy. Not a contradiction.

In actuality, a contradiction is not possible. That state of affairs is not a possible event in reality.

The only time contradictions come up is in concepts and thinking. They are not actual, present events in the world.

When someone states a thing, and then acts against what they asserted, this is hypocrisy - it is not a contradiction because those are not possible occurrences (hence why we use them as a manner of proof in mathematics and logic).

If I state instead, "There is a dog in my home and there is not a dog in my home." This is a contradiction (but it is in the concept, not the reality, which is the distinguishing characteristic).

This is the reason that he is not contradicting. Because it is impossible for him to actually do so. It is possible for him to be hypocritical, however.

The reason this is an important distinction is because a contradiction entails an actual logical flaw. A hypocritical state of affairs does not entail an actual logical flaw. There is no logical issue if someone states a thing and then goes entirely against it.

Edit: For example, we can point out contradictions when someone is reasoning about something, but when it comes to the actuality of the world, there cannot be any - that's when it changes to being hypocrisy and not a contradiction (given that they're going against their stated beliefs and so forth).

In addition, this distinction is very important to ensure that very elementary logical laws are maintained. It's important especially because without it, some fallacies would not be fallacies, and proper reasoning would be thrown away. The Tu Quoque fallacy, for example, would not be a logical fallacy if a contradiction was the same as hypocrisy.

[Lovelife090994]

So where in the Bible does it forbid a Christian to support LGBT? Can you provide me with a verse?

I don't practice homosexuality or slavery. So yet again, I really don't understand how I'm being contradictory or hypocritical

My girlfriend is Bi/Pansexual..I don't get my opinions/beliefs on homosexuality from the Bible, I get them from myself. I don't know about you but I strongly believe in the saying "To each his own", meaning I could care less who you love or what you do with someone in private. I don't go around damning gays and shoving Bibles in their faces.

By the way,The Bible actually condones slavery, 1 Timothy 1:8-10:

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the slaw is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine"

So if someone is a Democrat is they don't support Obama they're right? Or if someone lives in the United States and they disapprove of the government they're contradictory too right?

The Word of God is not a word of chains. If you follow God you are saved and "free." One of Christianity's main ideals is freedom.

[Babiole]

I'm a Catholic. I'm not practicing, but I do believe in God. I think that God cares about everyone, even those who don't believe in him. But I think you're allowed to interpret your religion any way you want. For example, my best friend is a Muslim. He listens to music, his father has only one wife, his mother doesn't wear a headscarf and works outside the home, he has many Christian and Jewish friends, and he doesn't have a problem with homosexuality. (Although at the same time, he's circumcised, he doesn't eat pork, and he fasts during Ramadan.)