• GOP candidate: Islam is Satanic, Jews and Muslims must convert to Christianity
    59 replies, posted
Oh-ho-ho-ho boy you've no idea how many crises they got.
It's really because they disagree on their religion, and thus, are barely even the same religion. I see what you mean, and to some extent you're right, but if they did indeed have the "same religion" entirely, I doubt they would be warring much at all.
https://media.giphy.com/media/kaq6GnxDlJaBq/giphy.gif
Yes, very confusing right? On the claim that "God exists", you do not agree with it. But at the same time, you do not necessarily believe the opposite claim that "God does not exist". The mystery is that you can be in the middle, where you "don't know".
That's called being an agnostic.
That's basically my point, he said to an atheist "how can you say that you know god isn't real", but you can be an agnostic atheist.
Ehhhhhh. Atheism is the entire lack of belief, while it might not be exclusive it's a term to describe someone who doesn't even consider the existence of God seriously, it's just not a thing, it's absent, it's the zero of beliefs. I believe that might be what you are saying, but then the second part... Maybe you could use this in context, I might be misunderstanding you, but it feels like a fairly useless distinction based on wordplay of your usage of belief. Like expecting an Atheist to not be able to say the believe God does not exist because that would involve them having a belief regarding God at all... Right?
Agnostic atheists are just agnostics? What does that mean? Is the only "real" atheist a hard atheist, someone who is irrationally totally and utterly certain of the inexistence of God?\ Why do you just keep editing your post? Pretty shitty way to have a discussion.
Apologies, I haven't slept in a while and after reading things back I haven't been happy with my wordings or omitted points I originally wanted to make, I'll be more careful. I've heard people claim themselves, or other people to be Agnostic Atheists, those who do not believe in a God but are unsure that a God exists. This isn't Atheism. So yeah, an Atheist is someone who is RATIONALLY totally and utterly certain of the in existence of God. Of course, there's a chance they are wrong, but that chance to be wrong does not make them any less certain of their belief. Atheism is an absolute disbelief in a deity. Anything under that would be Agnosticism. You simply aren't sure.
So, what do you call an agnostic theist? You actually can't be a rational gnostic on this issue, for either side.
Depends who you ask ...As always. Somewhat ironic how eagerly many religious people claim to know how infinitely wise beings make judgements.
I wouldn't care to call an agnostic theist anything other than either agnostic or a theist, probably agnostic though if they are on the fence on the subject. If they are unsure about WHICH god exists then I would call them a theist, it doesn't really matter as long as you either believe some does or does not exist, or simply admit you couldn't say either way. You might be leaning to one side but until that point you're just being safe with your terminology and isn't really meaningful, I would argue. I can't argue for gnosticism itself because it's a term that's a little convoluted with other supernatural belief systems, as annoying as that is when the usage of agnosticism is a lot wider when used in modern conversation. I know what you are saying though, and I would argue that someone who considers themselves to be an absolute atheist like myself to hold that belief in the entire lack of evidence of a god isn't irrational what so ever. That's like saying someone who absolutely does not believe in the flying spaghetti monster is being irrational just because the minute possibility exists that it does. If anyone said "yeh, maybe" to asking them that question I'm not sure it would be safe to call that person rational.
It wasn't directed only at him, but generally to any atheist naive enough to claim certainty about something that isn't even humanly possible to claim. In a response to your post, the point was to turn on the kettle and watch the shit start to bubble. But there is no evidence to even begin with, to suggest an existence beyond that of our own. As far as we are physically and humanly able to tell, there is only the Earthly existence that we are able to sense, study and generally act in. "Only in death we will truly know", right? So far, yes, the nature and the history of our existence is reasonably well studied and explained which has given us some very interesting information how life and planets develop and evolve, and you don't even need to look beyond the realm of observable existence to explain these things. And unfortunately, none of that even matters, because the only thing that matters here is our actions in it. It's good that you used the word absurd. Because the nature of existence (and this argument) is rather absurd. I'm not arguing about the creation of the universe which is actually not part of this argument, but again our actions in it, which is all that matters. There is nothing that could possibly matter more to us than us and our actions. I think it is very important to realize that religion is not at all about God, but rather how you should be acting (like how God would want you to act, or your mom, or the state's laws.) Religious people would be happy to tell you how you should act and behave, because they believe that our actions have so much value and so much importance that they carry significance beyond this existence, i.e. all the way to heaven/hell, which means that our actions on Earth have very, very big consequences. Way bigger than the climate change for sure. But like I said in the beginning, it is not humanly possible to find such certainty, in a world so vast and so full of information and different ways to live and act our lives that certainty is impossible. There is no certainty that anything we do matters at all, and it may all for nothing in the end. But we don't even have certainty about that. Now, once becoming aware of it, the only question that remains is how should we respond to it? You may deny this, and claim something else, your personal beliefs perhaps but in the believer's weakest moment, they will find their faith just as absurd. Or you may accept this, and defiantly continue to explore and seek for meaning by doing whatever the hell you want to do, hoping that perhaps one day you'll find our what is truly worth doing - but you probably won't. Hopefully by then, you've found yourself an enjoyable life filled with things and hobbies you like to do, and die happy.
I'm not sure you were arguing with me or trying to point things out, I'm getting a little hazey but I do agree with absolutely everything you just said. I'm quite happy to say that there may be some form of spirit or afterlife, what I wouldn't class this as is something supernatural. So while I am an Atheist, I certainly don't believe in the chance of a god or deity existing, that does not mean I inherently don't believe in the possibility of a spirit or consciousness moving on after death. As above what you quote, I'd say that's just a scientific phenomena that we don't understand yet and doesn't need to be grounded in a religious or mystical belief, which is what theism generally demands of you. Nice post in general.
I parsed and edited the text a bit, but thank you. I will now go and defiantly face the seemingly absurd existence where no certainty can be found by... getting myself intoxicated. Catch'ya later.
Indeed, it's something I'm glad I'm atheist for actually, or at the least had the opportunity to live in a world where this line of thinking was open to me. Just not that long ago, I found myself teary eyed just looking at a rock and thinking about what was involved to bring that rock into existence, even the space the rock exists in, these things have absolutely no right to exist. The fact that anything exists at all is the most baffling conundrum one can deal with. I find the theistic "because God created it" is the most reductionist, least interesting and all round dull answer to that question possible. Alcohol does help.
Observable existence shows nothing to suggest that there was some sort of all-powerful deity, and there are perfectly good scientific explanations for most things we once attributed to gods, and the list of things that can easily be credited to a god or group of gods is slowly but surely getting smaller.
An agnostic atheist doubts the existence of a deity but doesn't make any explicit claims either way. An agnostic neither doubts the existence of a deity nor believes in the existence of a deity and also makes no claims either way. An agnostic theist would be someone who thinks there probably is a deity of some form but isn't certain so makes no explicit claims that there is.
I'm a bipolar agnostic I wonder if fundies think I'll go to hell or heaven depending on whether or not I feel like God exists that particular day
Alright now to play devil's advocate here, this kind of language is relatively common within the context of a church. Typically the word satanic isn't utilized to describe non-Christians as a catch-all term, but those that have not accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior (in the Evangelical Church) are living in sin and will thus go to hell. Inflammatory language against Islam is particularly common nowadays, which is sad. If he had said all of this while he was campaigning that would be one thing, but as a pastor this kind of language isn't nearly as questionable. Even then of course, fuck this guy. He doesn't deserve a role in the government or a spot in heaven.
I think non gamers are satantic and must convert to epic gaming
This thread is stupid. There are only Sunni, and the rest are heretics.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn the true god
Strong and weak atheism are hardly new concepts.
I can't wait to vote against this piece of shit tomorrow.
Ah yes, the church of Saint Gaben, Lord of Steam Sales.
Republicans aren't people. They're some sort of nuclear waste experiment gone wrong. Nobody can be this stupid except Repubs.
This guy's winning by 2,000 votes, it might change if more come in but it's unlikely.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.