douchebag atheists

Interesting. Besides myself, one of the most frequent posters in the Christian "Sanctuary" is Olderwater Brother. We disagree about most things, but one thing we agree on is that there is no "holy trinity". With all due respect to Wiki (although it doesn't deserve much), there were Christians before there were any of those doctrines you mention. Those doctrines were made up by men who attended various highly political church councils in the Fourth and later centuries and after to define Christian "orthodoxy". Most Christians do accept their positions, as a result of centuries of brainwashing. But might doesn't make right. When I call myself a Christian, I mean that I accept the teachings and example of Jesus, who preached universal, non-judgmental love for everyone, including society's rejects. Some of my Progressive Christian coreligionists say that they aren't Christians, they're followers of Jesus. That's okay with me. It emphasizes rejection of all the mystical crap that's distracted generations of Jesus' followers from a clear understanding of what he was really about.

 

Jesus' message is pretty, for sure, yet there is no verifiable evidence that he actually existed. There is plenty of evidence to support figures before him, but nothing to support his existence.

Notwithstanding, his message was profound for that time. Today, it is still relevant. Does it matter? Not a lick, because we have religious republicans who claim to be Christian yet do the precise opposite of what Jesus would have done.

 

For a scholarly review of the evidence supporting the existence of Jesus, see Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? I find it convincing. I think his message is relevant today, as a counterweight to the religious Republican hypocrites, who are latter day Pharisees in "Christian" clothing.

 

Very good :2thumbsup:

 

Names are like smoke on a windy day.

 

Sometimes they help to cut through the smokescreen of doubletalk.

 

THANK YOU! This is one of the main points I try to get religious people to understand. I had a long debate with a christian on youtube about the fact that we were ALL born as atheists, and that we have to be TAUGHT to believe in god/gods. He didn't understand the difference between the LACK of belief in god, versus the BELIEF that there is no god. There's a subtle, but substantial difference. The christian on the other side of the debate never seemed to realize that he'd been thoroughly owned. It seemed that he just didn't want to admit to himself that he was once an atheist. It's pretty hilarious, really.

 

Hilarious? Maybe, but the joke may be on you. Of course we can define terms as we please, and it's technically true that "a-theist" means someone who does not believe in theism (which would include me, since I leave the door open to deism, pantheism and panentheism). The real test of definitions is their utility. I think it's not useful to regard someone like a baby or a person who is incapable of understanding the issue of being an atheist. Even if atheism is simply not believing in God instead of denying God, it historically has been associated with a conscious choice not to believe in God when the alternative is understood. Cognitive psychologist Justin Bennett, in Why Would Anyone Believe in God?, presents strong evidence that humans are naturally inclined to accept religious belief because of our propensity to perceive patterns and agency in the world around us. "Consequently, it is easy for children to learn about God, and to form a rudimentary theological notion of God". On the other hand, being an atheist is cognitively difficult, which is why it is relatively rare.

 

Aren't we born agnostic?

 

I'd say not even that, because it isn't meaningful to use that label for someone who isn't yet capable of understanding, even a rudimentary level, what a god or an agnostic is. It would be like saying babies are political Independents. I don't see how such a conceptualization could be useful except to create an impression that atheism/agnosticism are somehow the "natural" states for humans, when in fact humans have a strong propensity to believe, and do so in their early stages of cognitive development. (Barett; Shermer).

 

Agnostic and atheism both mean the same thing when it comes to Christianity.
Lacking a gnostic/theistic belief; 'a' being a prefix meaning lacking, having none of, opposed to - the same as 'an' (as in anhedonia) or 'im' (as in immoral)

And yes. Every creature is born atheist and agnostic; as they have to learn gnostism and theism.

 

You may be right but I was always under the understanding that atheist means you DON'T believe in God/etc and agnostic means you don't know if you believe because you don't have enough evidence so you're not sure either way.

And by those definitions I'd think a person would be born not knowing either way...

 

Those have kind'f become the modern definitions; but it's a distinction made for purely sociopolitical reasons.

When speaking literally, and correctly; it has nothing to do with what you do believe. Only what you don't believe. And children don't believe in a god until they are told to.






Even within those definitions, it's an extremely fine line between the two.
Atheist - doesn't believe in any god
Agnostic - doesn't believe in any (gnostic) god
Atheist - against the idea of believing because it has not yet been proven
Agnostic - (personally) against the idea of believing what has not yet been proven

It's just a measure of dividing atheists/agnostics into two separate camps "anti-religion" and "not currently a threat to religion" - but the words historically and literally mean the exact same thing, when it comes to any gnostic religion.

 

Okay...got ya.

Well, my only point was that you'd think that very young children just wouldn't believe either way...either for or against.

I'm gonna go off on a limb here and say something that very well may not be true- but in a way seems like it could be true, imo. It almost seems like when it comes down to it...since absolutely no person alive actually knows what happens when we die... that every single person is really, truly, underneath it all, agnostic.... and I say agnostic in that sentence in the way that I was applying it earlier- not knowing either way- it could be possible... it could be impossible.
(Shrugs.)

 

I had that same thought when I was getting confirmed and struggling with my faith. Our Pastor would often preach about how faith isn't easy, and everyone struggles with doubt, and that's why Thomas is an important figure in the Bible. But my thought to that was -- well, how's that "faith", and doesn't that mean that no one truly believes, but only believes when it's convenient to?

 

Yeah, I went through pretty much the same situation (I grew up going to church and stuff...had to do the whole confirmation thing and all...) and yeah... it's still a bit confusing to me...because I don't go to church at all anymore (although now and then I do go to a local Unitarian church- mostly because my son is 2 yrs old and doesn't go to daycare or anything..isn't around a lot of kids very often and I want to get him involved in something to be around other kids...and churches have things like that for free...plus the Unitarian church you can pretty much believe what you want... i'm actually really into the concept of a Unitarian church and think i'm gonna go back more often..)---- but anyways, yeah, haven't gone to a strictly Christian church (other than a xmas or two to humor my mom) for a good 15 years...
And I don't believe Jesus is the only path to God and I don't believe all the religious dogma... YET...
In some ways I try to follow Jesus in the way that I see him... like him saying "the kingdom of heaven is inside of you" and being an example of A WAY (not THE way but A way) of how to become one with God again...
Yet at the same time I do not totally even know if I believe anything happens when we die.
I also dabble in certain forms of Buddhism.
Yet I def. feel I am agnostic...
But I guess the way I see it is... with the whole doubting your faith thing that that pastor told you... (one told me something like that before too), God can't get mad at you (or anyone!) for doubting something that we can't see and all...
anyways... i'm not sure exactly where i'm going with this ....other than I try to practice some of the things from certain faiths even though i'm not doing it because I believe religious dogma or there being one path to god... for all I know "heaven" just means being able to die in peace and be let free from this world because your "soul" is content. But whatever it is is what I strive for... and one good thing is, I am finally at peace with not knowing what that is. (it used to bother me but it does not anymore)

 

A person doesn't have to understand something in order to NOT believe it.

The only reason we need the labels "atheist" and "theist", in the first place, is because we live in a world where people think the belief in god(s) is warranted. I don't think such beliefs are warranted, so I don't really think the labels are necessary. The labels exist though, so, from my perspective, all babies are atheists, because they lack any/all belief in god(s).

Also, being an atheist is, cognitively, VERY easy for me.

 

There are agnostic and gnostic atheists, and there are agnostic and gnostic theists. Being agnostic actually requires some thought and understanding, because it means acknowledging that it's impossible to know, for sure, that any gods exist or don't exist. Being gnostic, on the other hand, whether you're an atheist or a theist, means that you are 100% certain of the existence or non-existence of god(s). Personally, I'm an agnostic atheist, because I'm only 99.99% certain that no gods exist and acknowledge that there is no way of knowing, with 100% certainty, that no gods exist. If I was 100% certain, then I'd be a gnostic atheist.

That being said, I'm 100% certain the Abrahamic god doesn't exist, because evolution, in and of itself, completely disproves the biblical and quranic accounts of creation.

 

By god, please don't split any hairs...

Well, science also used to believe that chocolate was fattening and gave you zits. Now they are ranting and raving about its health benefits.

 

The nutritional health profession is hardly science, in my opinion.

Then comparing nutritional science to biology or physics is like comparing apples to oranges.