Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Spreggo]

Atheist.
Not much to explain there.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

Atheist.
Not much to explain there.

Considering how many people here seem to think Atheist means Agnostic I think there's a least a little to explain.

[Tack]

It's pretty easy.

Atheists are those who do not believe in god, or a higher power.

Agnostics are those who consider the possibility of there being a god, but sees that there is not enough proof for belief.

[Spreggo]

So wouldn't an Agnostic be atheistic for the duration of time that the existence of God is unproved?
If a higher power's existence were concretely proved, then I logically would have to accept his existence.

Maybe I don't understand the definition. If a god's existence were proven, would an atheist by definition refuse the proof?

[Tack]

No. You just would concretely not believe, until such a thing happens.

Agnostics are a religion of fence sitters. The people who say maybe god exists.

[Lord Dakoth]

Haha, I just realized that I hadn't listed my own beliefs in my own thread. How lame. 

I would describe myself as a non-denominational Christian. I believe that the God of the Bible exists, and I believe that everything in the Bible is true. This, of course, leads to some very specific, often controversial beliefs, for instance a belief in absolute, inflexible morals.

The one thing that really led me to believing in a God was the question of how everything started. I personally find the Big Bang to be at the best astronomically unlikely. All of the modern explanations that I have seen descend into the realm of quantum physics, which is of course mostly theoretical.

In the end, it all boils down to a matter of faith, and I would much rather put my faith in a loving God than in a random quantum event.

[Tack]

Your faith inspires me. Not to do anything... but it just does. Now never read russel's teapot.

I actually refuse to read the bible, because an atheist friend of mine did, and spent the next few days going on and on about how hypocritical it was.
I want to not denounce the bible, keep my options open for ragnarok. Therefore, if I don't read it, then I can go without having to agree or disagree with it.

Hardcore agnosticism

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

Haha, I just realized that I hadn't listed my own beliefs in my own thread. How lame. 

I would describe myself as a non-denominational Christian. I believe that the God of the Bible exists, and I believe that everything in the Bible is true. This, of course, leads to some very specific, often controversial beliefs, for instance a belief in absolute, inflexible morals.

The one thing that really led me to believing in a God was the question of how everything started. I personally find the Big Bang to be at the best astronomically unlikely. All of the modern explanations that I have seen descend into the realm of quantum physics, which is of course mostly theoretical.

In the end, it all boils down to a matter of faith, and I would much rather put my faith in a loving God than in a random quantum event.

I've always been curious about what it means to "believe that everything in the Bible is true".  Lots of people say stuff like that, but if you think about it, that's really a very strange statement.  There are tons of different Bibles.  Not all of them are even internally consistent.  How do you decide which one to believe in?

[Vester]

Roman Catholic.

Also: read the bible, Tack, especially verse 1:19 of the Book of Judges. It's hilarious.

Alternately: The Brick Testament. It's a really fun look at what the bible would look like if interpreted literally. With Legos.

Haha, I just realized that I hadn't listed my own beliefs in my own thread. How lame. 

I would describe myself as a non-denominational Christian. I believe that the God of the Bible exists, and I believe that everything in the Bible is true. This, of course, leads to some very specific, often controversial beliefs, for instance a belief in absolute, inflexible morals.

The one thing that really led me to believing in a God was the question of how everything started. I personally find the Big Bang to be at the best astronomically unlikely. All of the modern explanations that I have seen descend into the realm of quantum physics, which is of course mostly theoretical.

In the end, it all boils down to a matter of faith, and I would much rather put my faith in a loving God than in a random quantum event.

I've always been curious about what it means to "believe that everything in the Bible is true".  Lots of people say stuff like that, but if you think about it, that's really a very strange statement.  There are tons of different Bibles.  Not all of them are even internally consistent.  How do you decide which one to believe in?

There's a difference between truth and fact sometimes, at least when it comes to abstractions.

[Tack]

Apparently the first bible is... flawed?

[LegoLord]

Alternately: The Brick Testament. It's a really fun look at what the bible would look like if interpreted literally. With Legos.

Oh my goodness, that is awesome.  I think I'll put it in my sig just for the heck of it- I mean hey, it's LEGO and an offshoot from the same religion mine came from!  I don't ever want to forget it.

As for truth and the bible, while I do believe most of the stories to be myths, I don't believe they're bunk.  It's a little difficult to explain.  But it's similar to how it is believed that myths in general are based on things that really happened.  Did they happen as the myths say it?  Probably not.  But a more realistic version of them might have actually happened, and possibly was in some way inherently linked with the religion from the start.

The reason I roll with christianity in particular is that 1) I grew up learning about it, and 2) as far as I know, the most basic morals taught in the new testament by Jesus match fairly well with my morals.  The Good Sumaritan has a good moral, one must admit (and this is from someone slightly paranoid, so that's really saying something).

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

There's a difference between truth and fact sometimes, at least when it comes to abstractions.

I don't understand.

[Vester]

I'll explain, but it's a bit stoner-riffic..

I like to think of love and goodness as a truth, but there's nothing factual about them. Rather I extrapolate their existence from certain facts - that people will go out of their way to do something good with no real benefit. So in this case "truth" and "fact" are distinct - one proceeds from the other, rather than being synonymous.

Most other times though they are synonymous.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

I'll explain, but it's a bit stoner-riffic..

I like to think of love and goodness as a truth, but there's nothing factual about them. Rather I extrapolate their existence from certain facts - that people will go out of their way to do something good with no real benefit. So in this case "truth" and "fact" are distinct - one proceeds from the other, rather than being synonymous.

Most other times though they are synonymous.

If by "Stoner-riffic" you mean "Similar to Socrates" then yes, I totally agree.  That doesn't really answer my question though.

[Vester]

Right, sorry about that. What I meant was that, even though there are factual inconsistencies between most bibles, and internal inconsistencies as well, there's still Truth in them (the sort of truth I mentioned earlier).