Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.
The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.
Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.
Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.
Way to underscore PP’s point
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.
Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?
PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.
Athiests are not people who are certain that there is no God. They are people who do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.
Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.
What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?
Merriam Webster has this useful context under its definition of atheist:
"How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god."
I get the impression that a lot of atheists on this forum are actually agnostic.
The fact of the matter is that "agnostic" sounds softer than "atheist" and thus is easier to call yourself publicly. People often feel sorry for agnostics - assuming they are trying to believe, or want to believe, while the term atheist seems harsher.
How do I know? Just a guess. I've noticed that people are put off by atheists. Agnostics get pity and atheists get anger. I don't like either reaction.
DP -
I don’t think that is the reason from my experience with agnostics. It seems to be that for some people, intellectual honesty is better expressed through agnosticism - metaphysical beliefs cannot be proven or disproven through science. Certitude is foolish without evidence.
Very little in life is black and white. There are always different viewing lenses for understanding reality. Agnosticism more fully allows for lack of certitude in which to explore different aspects of reality.
I don’t feel pity for agnostics or atheists - everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
Yet I wager that all the believers here would say with certitude and intellectual honesty that they do not believe in fairies and goblins, who are supernatural beings, like God in the sense that you can't see them. Also, some people (adults, in the case of fairies and goblins) don't believe in them. Thus, agnosticism is not good if it, as pp suggests, allows for exploring "different aspects of reality".
Not sure I follow your reasoning but agree that most religious people are unlikely to also believe in leprechauns/ fairies/ goblins etc.
Examples of Areas where I thought agnostics may be open to alternative metaphysical explanations are:
- seemingly Miraculous recoveries (many medical doctors and nurses have experienced inexplicable recoveries of patients with extremely poor prognoses following their families or faith communities praying for them).
- near death experiences where people who do technically die physically for some period of time. They often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet) - past life memories usually by children who remember details Of lives from historical periods where they could not have possibly
Known about.
I don’t know but that is my impression - not knowing opening up different possibilities.
Interestingly, Buddhists often recommend a mental state of not knowing as being essential to developing mindfulness. My art teacher recommends it for creating meaningful art.
This is just an effect of the lack of oxygen on the brain. If souls existed and were even temporarily "outside" of the body, they wouldn't just hover in place. They would go zooming off at over 60,000 mph as the earth continued in its orbit around the sun as souls would no longer be bound to the physical laws of the universe.
LOL. So by your reckoning, a soul has no mass and is therefore not affected by gravity. But it is affected by the other physical laws of motion? Pick a lane.
I understand complex thought may be difficult for some. The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph.
Thanks for demonstrating why science and religion shouldn’t mix.
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of complex thought.
My complex thought is just fine, thanks. As is my grasp on reality and physics.
You are confusing “complex thought” with all-out nuttery.
Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.
The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.
Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.
Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.
Way to underscore PP’s point
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.
Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?
PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.
Athiests are not people who are certain that there is no God. They are people who do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.
Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.
What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?
Bart Ehrman (A scholar who followed the evangelical->mainline->no religion pipeline) says that remembering the Greek root words is helpful.
theos=God / atheos=> without God / atheism =>without God [belief]
gnosis=knowledge / agnosti=>without knowledge / agnosisticism=>without knowledge [don't or can't know]
He says the distinction is helpful and important and that he is both an atheist and an agnostic. He doesn't believe in God and he doesn't have concrete knowledge of God's existence or nonexistence.
Those are his definitions. He doesn’t define them for anyone but himself.
If this means that all dictionary definitions are incorrect and/or personal, then I disagree.
Bart doesn’t write dictionary definitions. He’s not an authority on language.
Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.
The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.
Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.
Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.
Way to underscore PP’s point
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.
Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?
PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.
Athiests are not people who are certain that there is no God. They are people who do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.
Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.
What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?
Merriam Webster has this useful context under its definition of atheist:
"How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god."
I get the impression that a lot of atheists on this forum are actually agnostic.
The fact of the matter is that "agnostic" sounds softer than "atheist" and thus is easier to call yourself publicly. People often feel sorry for agnostics - assuming they are trying to believe, or want to believe, while the term atheist seems harsher.
How do I know? Just a guess. I've noticed that people are put off by atheists. Agnostics get pity and atheists get anger. I don't like either reaction.
DP -
I don’t think that is the reason from my experience with agnostics. It seems to be that for some people, intellectual honesty is better expressed through agnosticism - metaphysical beliefs cannot be proven or disproven through science. Certitude is foolish without evidence.
Very little in life is black and white. There are always different viewing lenses for understanding reality. Agnosticism more fully allows for lack of certitude in which to explore different aspects of reality.
I don’t feel pity for agnostics or atheists - everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
Yet I wager that all the believers here would say with certitude and intellectual honesty that they do not believe in fairies and goblins, who are supernatural beings, like God in the sense that you can't see them. Also, some people (adults, in the case of fairies and goblins) don't believe in them. Thus, agnosticism is not good if it, as pp suggests, allows for exploring "different aspects of reality".
Not sure I follow your reasoning but agree that most religious people are unlikely to also believe in leprechauns/ fairies/ goblins etc.
Examples of Areas where I thought agnostics may be open to alternative metaphysical explanations are:
- seemingly Miraculous recoveries (many medical doctors and nurses have experienced inexplicable recoveries of patients with extremely poor prognoses following their families or faith communities praying for them).
- near death experiences where people who do technically die physically for some period of time. They often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet) - past life memories usually by children who remember details Of lives from historical periods where they could not have possibly
Known about.
I don’t know but that is my impression - not knowing opening up different possibilities.
Interestingly, Buddhists often recommend a mental state of not knowing as being essential to developing mindfulness. My art teacher recommends it for creating meaningful art.
This is just an effect of the lack of oxygen on the brain. If souls existed and were even temporarily "outside" of the body, they wouldn't just hover in place. They would go zooming off at over 60,000 mph as the earth continued in its orbit around the sun as souls would no longer be bound to the physical laws of the universe.
LOL. So by your reckoning, a soul has no mass and is therefore not affected by gravity. But it is affected by the other physical laws of motion? Pick a lane.
I understand complex thought may be difficult for some. The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph.
Thanks for demonstrating why science and religion shouldn’t mix.
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of complex thought.
Thanks for being judgmental and wrong.
What's wrong?
DP. The bigger question is what’s right?
Funniest thing I’ve read on DCUM in a long time:
“ The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph. ”
Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.
The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.
Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.
Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.
Way to underscore PP’s point
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.
Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?
PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.
Athiests are not people who are certain that there is no God. They are people who do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.
Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.
What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?
Merriam Webster has this useful context under its definition of atheist:
"How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god."
I get the impression that a lot of atheists on this forum are actually agnostic.
The fact of the matter is that "agnostic" sounds softer than "atheist" and thus is easier to call yourself publicly. People often feel sorry for agnostics - assuming they are trying to believe, or want to believe, while the term atheist seems harsher.
How do I know? Just a guess. I've noticed that people are put off by atheists. Agnostics get pity and atheists get anger. I don't like either reaction.
DP -
I don’t think that is the reason from my experience with agnostics. It seems to be that for some people, intellectual honesty is better expressed through agnosticism - metaphysical beliefs cannot be proven or disproven through science. Certitude is foolish without evidence.
Very little in life is black and white. There are always different viewing lenses for understanding reality. Agnosticism more fully allows for lack of certitude in which to explore different aspects of reality.
I don’t feel pity for agnostics or atheists - everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
Yet I wager that all the believers here would say with certitude and intellectual honesty that they do not believe in fairies and goblins, who are supernatural beings, like God in the sense that you can't see them. Also, some people (adults, in the case of fairies and goblins) don't believe in them. Thus, agnosticism is not good if it, as pp suggests, allows for exploring "different aspects of reality".
Not sure I follow your reasoning but agree that most religious people are unlikely to also believe in leprechauns/ fairies/ goblins etc.
Examples of Areas where I thought agnostics may be open to alternative metaphysical explanations are:
- seemingly Miraculous recoveries (many medical doctors and nurses have experienced inexplicable recoveries of patients with extremely poor prognoses following their families or faith communities praying for them).
- near death experiences where people who do technically die physically for some period of time. They often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet) - past life memories usually by children who remember details Of lives from historical periods where they could not have possibly
Known about.
I don’t know but that is my impression - not knowing opening up different possibilities.
Interestingly, Buddhists often recommend a mental state of not knowing as being essential to developing mindfulness. My art teacher recommends it for creating meaningful art.
This is just an effect of the lack of oxygen on the brain. If souls existed and were even temporarily "outside" of the body, they wouldn't just hover in place. They would go zooming off at over 60,000 mph as the earth continued in its orbit around the sun as souls would no longer be bound to the physical laws of the universe.
LOL. So by your reckoning, a soul has no mass and is therefore not affected by gravity. But it is affected by the other physical laws of motion? Pick a lane.
I understand complex thought may be difficult for some. The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph.
Thanks for demonstrating why science and religion shouldn’t mix.
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of complex thought.
Thanks for being judgmental and wrong.
What's wrong?
DP. The bigger question is what’s right?
Funniest thing I’ve read on DCUM in a long time:
“ The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph. ”
HILARIOUS.
You are misrepresenting that poster's view. Go back and read the whole thread. They were responding to the claim that near death experiences might be an example of evidence for something existential. It was a refutation of that assertion with logic.
Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.
The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.
Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.
Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.
Way to underscore PP’s point
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.
Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?
PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.
Athiests are not people who are certain that there is no God. They are people who do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.
Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.
What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?
Merriam Webster has this useful context under its definition of atheist:
"How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god."
I get the impression that a lot of atheists on this forum are actually agnostic.
The fact of the matter is that "agnostic" sounds softer than "atheist" and thus is easier to call yourself publicly. People often feel sorry for agnostics - assuming they are trying to believe, or want to believe, while the term atheist seems harsher.
How do I know? Just a guess. I've noticed that people are put off by atheists. Agnostics get pity and atheists get anger. I don't like either reaction.
DP -
I don’t think that is the reason from my experience with agnostics. It seems to be that for some people, intellectual honesty is better expressed through agnosticism - metaphysical beliefs cannot be proven or disproven through science. Certitude is foolish without evidence.
Very little in life is black and white. There are always different viewing lenses for understanding reality. Agnosticism more fully allows for lack of certitude in which to explore different aspects of reality.
I don’t feel pity for agnostics or atheists - everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
Yet I wager that all the believers here would say with certitude and intellectual honesty that they do not believe in fairies and goblins, who are supernatural beings, like God in the sense that you can't see them. Also, some people (adults, in the case of fairies and goblins) don't believe in them. Thus, agnosticism is not good if it, as pp suggests, allows for exploring "different aspects of reality".
Not sure I follow your reasoning but agree that most religious people are unlikely to also believe in leprechauns/ fairies/ goblins etc.
Examples of Areas where I thought agnostics may be open to alternative metaphysical explanations are:
- seemingly Miraculous recoveries (many medical doctors and nurses have experienced inexplicable recoveries of patients with extremely poor prognoses following their families or faith communities praying for them).
- near death experiences where people who do technically die physically for some period of time. They often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet) - past life memories usually by children who remember details Of lives from historical periods where they could not have possibly
Known about.
I don’t know but that is my impression - not knowing opening up different possibilities.
Interestingly, Buddhists often recommend a mental state of not knowing as being essential to developing mindfulness. My art teacher recommends it for creating meaningful art.
This is just an effect of the lack of oxygen on the brain. If souls existed and were even temporarily "outside" of the body, they wouldn't just hover in place. They would go zooming off at over 60,000 mph as the earth continued in its orbit around the sun as souls would no longer be bound to the physical laws of the universe.
LOL. So by your reckoning, a soul has no mass and is therefore not affected by gravity. But it is affected by the other physical laws of motion? Pick a lane.
I understand complex thought may be difficult for some. The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph.
Thanks for demonstrating why science and religion shouldn’t mix.
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of complex thought.
Thanks for being judgmental and wrong.
What's wrong?
DP. The bigger question is what’s right?
Funniest thing I’ve read on DCUM in a long time:
“ The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph. ”
HILARIOUS.
You are misrepresenting that poster's view. Go back and read the whole thread. They were responding to the claim that near death experiences might be an example of evidence for something existential. It was a refutation of that assertion with logic.
You should try to use that process sometime.
Except they refuted it with bad physics.
All the more reason why science and religion shouldn’t mix. One is based on reality and the other isn’t.
Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.
The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.
Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.
Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.
Way to underscore PP’s point
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.
Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?
PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.
Athiests are not people who are certain that there is no God. They are people who do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.
Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.
What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?
Merriam Webster has this useful context under its definition of atheist:
"How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god."
I get the impression that a lot of atheists on this forum are actually agnostic.
No, they are mostly atheists.
AKA they are as certain about the existence of various gods as they are about fairies and leprechauns.
Do we go around saying we are Santa agnostic? No.
Except I think most agnostics acknowledge there is a difference between deities and fairies/leprechauns/Santa. Only self-described atheists insist on pretending all these things are equal for the sake of a tired argument.
They are all manufactured characters so...they are the same thing wrt "existence".
Dieties and fairies/leprechauns/Santa aren't all equal, but they are all supernatural. Both adults and children believe in Deities (God). Only children believe in fairies/leprechauns/Santa. Adults no longer believe in fairies/leprechauns/Santa. They think they're silly and childish, but many adults still believe in God. They take God very seriously.
Right. They are all figments of their imagination.
Just last night, I saw a short, (1:57 min) George Carlin video on religion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoYyiNRtMEE . In it, he says something like "There's a man in the sky, who will punish you in a fiery pit for eternity if you disobey any of the 10 things he told you not to do - but he loves you." It's priceless.
Another atheist comedian gets Christianity wrong. Not a surprise.
That short video about god https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoYyiNRtMEE is not wrong. it's so right. Christians do actually believe that "there's a man in the sky, who will punish you in a fiery pit for eternity if you disobey any of the 10 things he told you not to do - but he loves you." That's certainly what I learned when I was a Christian - not in those words, of course, but that was the message: "Be good or burn in hell forever!"
I can categorically say that as a Christian, I don’t believe that. Here is what I believe
1. There is no gender in the spirit
2. God is love, light and transcends time. space and place.
3. God shows love and mercy to all.
4. God knows the inner thoughts of all and knows our motivations.
5. Any thought or action that we carry out that is motivated by selfless love is of God and therefore transcends time and place and will endure after our physical bodies pass awY.
6. Everything in this life shall pass but God’s love and mercy endures forever
7. There are many paths to God and there is room for all of us.
You have the same problem that most believers do, that you only accept your interpretation of religion and ignore reality.
And you seem to have the same problem that many other atheists have, which is that you ignore acknowledge progressive/open religious theology, because they're not the loud fundamentalists you see on TV.
I'm agnostic. I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran (which is super conservative; women can't be clergy; lots of focus on sin; they only pray with other Missouri Synod Lutherans because everyone else is doing it wrong; etc) and for a long time I was angry about all religion. Understandably, I think. But then I grew up and saw that even within Lutheranism, there are more open, accepting denominations (ELCA Lutherans). I'm not going to go out and join an ELCA Lutheran church or start identifying as Christian again, but I recognize that my childhood experience is not representative of all Christian belief and certainly not of all religious belief generally. I don't like when people make assumptions about my beliefs as an agnostic, so of course religious people (especially religious people like PP whose beliefs are so different from the stereotype of a Christian) wouldn't like it either, and I'd rather just take those people at their word about their beliefs than argue with them about other Christians.
Thank you!
I'm the PP. I'm not ignoring open religious theology. I'm pointing out that your "open" thinking goes against the organized religion since they have their own set of rules that believers are supposed to follow. When you have to make up your rules to fit your views, why adhere to any belief system?
Thank you for your question.
I don’t feel like I need to make up rules to fit my views. My faith tradition encourages individual members to use reason and think about what makes sense to them. It also advocates for inclusive love and anyone is welcome.
My church community has been supportive and loving while giving me space to just be myself. I don’t feel any pressure to interpret the Bible any particular way or to be someone who I am not. I attend Bible study regularly: interpretations of scriptures vary greatly but generally are non literal.
I feel a warm sense of community and i deeply enjoy the sacred music. It just works for me and I believe that there is a spiritual home for everyone - different faith traditions (or collectives of like-minded people).
There are many scientists in my church - that so important to me - for faith and science to be seen as being in dialogue rather than in conflict necessarily. They offer many social justice related volunteer opportunities, which is also important to me.
It is definitely not for everyone and I respect that.
By the way my views are rooted in sacred text and I did not make them up out of thin air. As mentioned earlier, my faith tradition tends to be non literal and allow for personal interpretation of scriptures.
1. There is no gender in the spirit (Galatians 3:28)
2. God is love, light and transcends time. space and place.
[God is love' (1 Jn 4:8b, 4:16b); 'God is light' (1 Jn 1:5; Jn 9:5); and 'God is life' (1 Jn 1:2; Jn 14:6)]
3. God shows love and mercy to all.
(Ephesians 2:4-5 ; Isaiah 30:18; Lamentations 3:22-23; Psalm 25:10; James 3:17)
4. God knows the inner thoughts of all and knows our motivations.
(Jeremiah 17:10; 1 Chronicles 28:9)
5. Any thought or action that we carry out that is motivated by selfless love is of God and therefore transcends time and place and will endure after our physical bodies pass away.
(1 Corinthians 13:4-7; 1 Corinthians 13:13; John 15:12; 1; John 4:8; Philippians 2:4
6. Everything in this life shall pass but God’s love and mercy endures forever
(Psalm 136:26; John 2:17; Mathew 24:35; Isaiah 40:8)
7. There are many paths to God and there is room for all of us.
(Psalm 25:10; Proverbs 3:6; John 14:2)
I don't remember scripture as well as you to cite, so I'm going to use an analogy.
Think of a garbage dump. Within it, a flowering plant has taken hold and blossomed. You have zoomed in on the beauty of this flower and hold your attention there. However, when you zoom back out and see the entirety, it's all still a big pile of trash.
I can see why you might think that. Humans have certainly made many messes on our astonishing planet .
But if you keep zooming back into space Scientists widely agree that seeing Earth from space is a breathtaking and awe-inspiring sight. It is often described as "beautiful" due to the vibrant azure color of the planet, the playful patterns of clouds, and the stark contrast against the blackness of space. This provides a distinctive perspective on our planet's fragility and interconnectedness, often leading to a profound shift in perspective known as the "overview effect."
"Blue Marble":
The iconic image of Earth from space, often called the "Blue Marble," captures the striking blue hue of our planet, which is primarily due to the reflection of light from the oceans.
Overview Effect:
Many astronauts report experiencing a profound emotional shift upon seeing Earth from space, realizing the interconnectedness of all life on the planet and the need for global stewardship. Researchers have characterized the effect as "a state of awe with self-transcendent qualities, precipitated by a particularly striking visual stimulus". The most prominent common aspects of personally experiencing the Earth from space are appreciation and perception of beauty, unexpected and even overwhelming emotion, and an increased sense of connection to other people and the Earth as a whole.
It sounds very similar to many religious experiences where the everyday mundane illusions of separation from each other and God start to dissipate.
What is your point?
Thank you for asking. I thought it was clear.
I agree with PP about perspective being important. I extended his or her analogy for zooming out further from a flower to a trash heap. When we zoom out far enough into space then we arrive back at a view of beauty and interconnectedness.
Yes humans are good at using our smarts for destructive and short sighted gains. There is plenty of work for us all to do to help mitigate climate change, reduce cycles of poverty, avert wars, and take up other efforts to protect our planet and each other. However when the focus goes further out we can see how magnificent, unique, and woven together life here on Earth is.
Further, the overview effect described by many scientists sounds very similar in essence to many religious experiences where everyday mundanities fade away and a deep feeling of peace and unity takes hold.
I think you missed the overall point which was religion is trash. It had nothing to do with the overall planet or trash generally. It doesn't matter if you find pieces that are salvageable in a belief system, on the whole, all of it is garbage.
This clearly illustrates that one person’s trash is another person’s treasure.
Right --- and supposedly, "God" made us this way
And since he knows your thoughts and he knows what is going to happen, its all part of his mysterious plan.
I personally believe that the divine plan is loving, creative and interactive every step of the way. We have free will.
But I agree the divine plan seems mysterious and the value of seeking heavenly treasures is very hard to quantify.
Matthew 6:19-20: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal"
Your bible verse is another good example of why I left christianity. It exemplifies a worldview that is completely antithetical to what I believe about what we should be doing with our time in THIS WORLD (the only lifetime we are sure we are going to get), and that is to be loving, kind, accepting, generous, etc. However, the worldview that this verse espouses destroys some christians' abilities to do what is loving and kind in this world, in favor of following someone there is no proof exists other than a book, and that leads to so much harm. Ask me how I know. And also, if anyone really really wants to understand the extent of the harm done by christians that actually follow this book (the Bible), I can point you to so many websites about religious trauma, families that are destroyed through the practice of shunning, therapists that have had to learn about religious trauma to help suicidal people that were kicked out of their families for being gay, etc. I have a growing list of resources that would show anyone the massive scale of the insidious harm of fundamentalist christianity. The people perpetrating this abuse and harm and very very good christians. They are just horrible human beings.
Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
Organized religion is a way to control. MAGA pretending to be christians has turned my stomach. So much hate and division with trump and his cultists-nothing christian like about their behavior
Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.
The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.
Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.
Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.
Way to underscore PP’s point
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.
Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?
PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.
Athiests are not people who are certain that there is no God. They are people who do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.
Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.
What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?
Merriam Webster has this useful context under its definition of atheist:
"How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god."
I get the impression that a lot of atheists on this forum are actually agnostic.
The fact of the matter is that "agnostic" sounds softer than "atheist" and thus is easier to call yourself publicly. People often feel sorry for agnostics - assuming they are trying to believe, or want to believe, while the term atheist seems harsher.
How do I know? Just a guess. I've noticed that people are put off by atheists. Agnostics get pity and atheists get anger. I don't like either reaction.
DP -
I don’t think that is the reason from my experience with agnostics. It seems to be that for some people, intellectual honesty is better expressed through agnosticism - metaphysical beliefs cannot be proven or disproven through science. Certitude is foolish without evidence.
Very little in life is black and white. There are always different viewing lenses for understanding reality. Agnosticism more fully allows for lack of certitude in which to explore different aspects of reality.
I don’t feel pity for agnostics or atheists - everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
Yet I wager that all the believers here would say with certitude and intellectual honesty that they do not believe in fairies and goblins, who are supernatural beings, like God in the sense that you can't see them. Also, some people (adults, in the case of fairies and goblins) don't believe in them. Thus, agnosticism is not good if it, as pp suggests, allows for exploring "different aspects of reality".
Not sure I follow your reasoning but agree that most religious people are unlikely to also believe in leprechauns/ fairies/ goblins etc.
Examples of Areas where I thought agnostics may be open to alternative metaphysical explanations are:
- seemingly Miraculous recoveries (many medical doctors and nurses have experienced inexplicable recoveries of patients with extremely poor prognoses following their families or faith communities praying for them).
- near death experiences where people who do technically die physically for some period of time. They often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet) - past life memories usually by children who remember details Of lives from historical periods where they could not have possibly
Known about.
I don’t know but that is my impression - not knowing opening up different possibilities.
Interestingly, Buddhists often recommend a mental state of not knowing as being essential to developing mindfulness. My art teacher recommends it for creating meaningful art.
This is just an effect of the lack of oxygen on the brain. If souls existed and were even temporarily "outside" of the body, they wouldn't just hover in place. They would go zooming off at over 60,000 mph as the earth continued in its orbit around the sun as souls would no longer be bound to the physical laws of the universe.
LOL. So by your reckoning, a soul has no mass and is therefore not affected by gravity. But it is affected by the other physical laws of motion? Pick a lane.
I understand complex thought may be difficult for some. The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph.
Thanks for demonstrating why science and religion shouldn’t mix.
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of complex thought.
My complex thought is just fine, thanks. As is my grasp on reality and physics.
You are confusing “complex thought” with all-out nuttery.
I'm the PP. Not nutty. I'll try to keep it simple for you to understand. This is in reference to the claim that NDEs are an example of, "they often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet)"
If souls are real, there are two outcomes:
1) - souls exist beyond the physical laws of the universe. They are not tied to the same rules that govern things like gravity, or the strong or weak nuclear forces. If the soul isn’t affected by these laws, it wouldn’t stay hovering around because the Earth itself is constantly moving through space. As the Earth continues its orbit and travels through space, the soul wouldn't be confined to the Earth's position or motion. So, if the soul isn't bound by physics, it wouldn't remain in place. Since the Earth moves around 67,000 mph through space, it would continue on.
2) - souls are bound to the physical laws of the universe. That is how they are able to move around like Patrick Swayze in Ghost and the typical Hollywood viewpoint. However, if they are bound to natural laws of the universe, that would be measurable or detectable. No credible study has ever found evidence. Personally, if I were a ghost, and I had been around for a couple thousand years stuck in limbo, I would make my way to a particle accelerator and impact the results in a way to encode a message indicating that I still existed. Given the billions of people that have lived since the dawn of humanity (even if limited to the shortened biblical timeline), and the potential for "ghosts" to be lingering around, somewhere someplace one of them would have found a way to communicate their existence.
Thus, claims by those who have an NDE that they observed their bodies are more likely an artifact of the brain responding to lack of oxygen than an awe inspiring inferential piece of evidence that souls are real.
Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.
The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.
Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.
Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.
Way to underscore PP’s point
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.
Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?
PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.
Athiests are not people who are certain that there is no God. They are people who do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.
Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.
What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?
Merriam Webster has this useful context under its definition of atheist:
"How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god."
I get the impression that a lot of atheists on this forum are actually agnostic.
The fact of the matter is that "agnostic" sounds softer than "atheist" and thus is easier to call yourself publicly. People often feel sorry for agnostics - assuming they are trying to believe, or want to believe, while the term atheist seems harsher.
How do I know? Just a guess. I've noticed that people are put off by atheists. Agnostics get pity and atheists get anger. I don't like either reaction.
DP -
I don’t think that is the reason from my experience with agnostics. It seems to be that for some people, intellectual honesty is better expressed through agnosticism - metaphysical beliefs cannot be proven or disproven through science. Certitude is foolish without evidence.
Very little in life is black and white. There are always different viewing lenses for understanding reality. Agnosticism more fully allows for lack of certitude in which to explore different aspects of reality.
I don’t feel pity for agnostics or atheists - everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
Yet I wager that all the believers here would say with certitude and intellectual honesty that they do not believe in fairies and goblins, who are supernatural beings, like God in the sense that you can't see them. Also, some people (adults, in the case of fairies and goblins) don't believe in them. Thus, agnosticism is not good if it, as pp suggests, allows for exploring "different aspects of reality".
Not sure I follow your reasoning but agree that most religious people are unlikely to also believe in leprechauns/ fairies/ goblins etc.
Examples of Areas where I thought agnostics may be open to alternative metaphysical explanations are:
- seemingly Miraculous recoveries (many medical doctors and nurses have experienced inexplicable recoveries of patients with extremely poor prognoses following their families or faith communities praying for them).
- near death experiences where people who do technically die physically for some period of time. They often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet) - past life memories usually by children who remember details Of lives from historical periods where they could not have possibly
Known about.
I don’t know but that is my impression - not knowing opening up different possibilities.
Interestingly, Buddhists often recommend a mental state of not knowing as being essential to developing mindfulness. My art teacher recommends it for creating meaningful art.
This is just an effect of the lack of oxygen on the brain. If souls existed and were even temporarily "outside" of the body, they wouldn't just hover in place. They would go zooming off at over 60,000 mph as the earth continued in its orbit around the sun as souls would no longer be bound to the physical laws of the universe.
LOL. So by your reckoning, a soul has no mass and is therefore not affected by gravity. But it is affected by the other physical laws of motion? Pick a lane.
I understand complex thought may be difficult for some. The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph.
Thanks for demonstrating why science and religion shouldn’t mix.
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of complex thought.
My complex thought is just fine, thanks. As is my grasp on reality and physics.
You are confusing “complex thought” with all-out nuttery.
I'm the PP. Not nutty. I'll try to keep it simple for you to understand. This is in reference to the claim that NDEs are an example of, "they often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet)"
If souls are real, there are two outcomes:
1) - souls exist beyond the physical laws of the universe. They are not tied to the same rules that govern things like gravity, or the strong or weak nuclear forces. If the soul isn’t affected by these laws, it wouldn’t stay hovering around because the Earth itself is constantly moving through space. As the Earth continues its orbit and travels through space, the soul wouldn't be confined to the Earth's position or motion. So, if the soul isn't bound by physics, it wouldn't remain in place. Since the Earth moves around 67,000 mph through space, it would continue on.
2) - souls are bound to the physical laws of the universe. That is how they are able to move around like Patrick Swayze in Ghost and the typical Hollywood viewpoint. However, if they are bound to natural laws of the universe, that would be measurable or detectable. No credible study has ever found evidence. Personally, if I were a ghost, and I had been around for a couple thousand years stuck in limbo, I would make my way to a particle accelerator and impact the results in a way to encode a message indicating that I still existed. Given the billions of people that have lived since the dawn of humanity (even if limited to the shortened biblical timeline), and the potential for "ghosts" to be lingering around, somewhere someplace one of them would have found a way to communicate their existence.
Thus, claims by those who have an NDE that they observed their bodies are more likely an artifact of the brain responding to lack of oxygen than an awe inspiring inferential piece of evidence that souls are real.
The entire thought exercise is nutters and your physics reasoning is trash.
Souls don’t exist. No need to play circle jerk games about it.
Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.
The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.
Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.
Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.
Way to underscore PP’s point
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.
Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?
PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.
Athiests are not people who are certain that there is no God. They are people who do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.
Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.
What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?
Merriam Webster has this useful context under its definition of atheist:
"How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god."
I get the impression that a lot of atheists on this forum are actually agnostic.
The fact of the matter is that "agnostic" sounds softer than "atheist" and thus is easier to call yourself publicly. People often feel sorry for agnostics - assuming they are trying to believe, or want to believe, while the term atheist seems harsher.
How do I know? Just a guess. I've noticed that people are put off by atheists. Agnostics get pity and atheists get anger. I don't like either reaction.
DP -
I don’t think that is the reason from my experience with agnostics. It seems to be that for some people, intellectual honesty is better expressed through agnosticism - metaphysical beliefs cannot be proven or disproven through science. Certitude is foolish without evidence.
Very little in life is black and white. There are always different viewing lenses for understanding reality. Agnosticism more fully allows for lack of certitude in which to explore different aspects of reality.
I don’t feel pity for agnostics or atheists - everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
Yet I wager that all the believers here would say with certitude and intellectual honesty that they do not believe in fairies and goblins, who are supernatural beings, like God in the sense that you can't see them. Also, some people (adults, in the case of fairies and goblins) don't believe in them. Thus, agnosticism is not good if it, as pp suggests, allows for exploring "different aspects of reality".
Not sure I follow your reasoning but agree that most religious people are unlikely to also believe in leprechauns/ fairies/ goblins etc.
Examples of Areas where I thought agnostics may be open to alternative metaphysical explanations are:
- seemingly Miraculous recoveries (many medical doctors and nurses have experienced inexplicable recoveries of patients with extremely poor prognoses following their families or faith communities praying for them).
- near death experiences where people who do technically die physically for some period of time. They often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet) - past life memories usually by children who remember details Of lives from historical periods where they could not have possibly
Known about.
I don’t know but that is my impression - not knowing opening up different possibilities.
Interestingly, Buddhists often recommend a mental state of not knowing as being essential to developing mindfulness. My art teacher recommends it for creating meaningful art.
This is just an effect of the lack of oxygen on the brain. If souls existed and were even temporarily "outside" of the body, they wouldn't just hover in place. They would go zooming off at over 60,000 mph as the earth continued in its orbit around the sun as souls would no longer be bound to the physical laws of the universe.
LOL. So by your reckoning, a soul has no mass and is therefore not affected by gravity. But it is affected by the other physical laws of motion? Pick a lane.
I understand complex thought may be difficult for some. The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph.
Thanks for demonstrating why science and religion shouldn’t mix.
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of complex thought.
My complex thought is just fine, thanks. As is my grasp on reality and physics.
You are confusing “complex thought” with all-out nuttery.
I'm the PP. Not nutty. I'll try to keep it simple for you to understand. This is in reference to the claim that NDEs are an example of, "they often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet)"
If souls are real, there are two outcomes:
1) - souls exist beyond the physical laws of the universe. They are not tied to the same rules that govern things like gravity, or the strong or weak nuclear forces. If the soul isn’t affected by these laws, it wouldn’t stay hovering around because the Earth itself is constantly moving through space. As the Earth continues its orbit and travels through space, the soul wouldn't be confined to the Earth's position or motion. So, if the soul isn't bound by physics, it wouldn't remain in place. Since the Earth moves around 67,000 mph through space, it would continue on.
2) - souls are bound to the physical laws of the universe. That is how they are able to move around like Patrick Swayze in Ghost and the typical Hollywood viewpoint. However, if they are bound to natural laws of the universe, that would be measurable or detectable. No credible study has ever found evidence. Personally, if I were a ghost, and I had been around for a couple thousand years stuck in limbo, I would make my way to a particle accelerator and impact the results in a way to encode a message indicating that I still existed. Given the billions of people that have lived since the dawn of humanity (even if limited to the shortened biblical timeline), and the potential for "ghosts" to be lingering around, somewhere someplace one of them would have found a way to communicate their existence.
Thus, claims by those who have an NDE that they observed their bodies are more likely an artifact of the brain responding to lack of oxygen than an awe inspiring inferential piece of evidence that souls are real.
Oh dear. In option 1 you posit that the Earth would keep moving but the soul would remain in place (with regard to what reference frame or vantage point you do not specify). You seem to think that remaining planted in place is the default for souls because they are immaterial. But in fact remaining planted in place is the default for already still material objects with mass, unless they are acted upon by a force. Brush up on your Newtonian physics and get back to us.
Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.
The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.
Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.
Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.
Way to underscore PP’s point
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.
Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?
PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.
Athiests are not people who are certain that there is no God. They are people who do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.
Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.
What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?
Merriam Webster has this useful context under its definition of atheist:
"How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god."
I get the impression that a lot of atheists on this forum are actually agnostic.
The fact of the matter is that "agnostic" sounds softer than "atheist" and thus is easier to call yourself publicly. People often feel sorry for agnostics - assuming they are trying to believe, or want to believe, while the term atheist seems harsher.
How do I know? Just a guess. I've noticed that people are put off by atheists. Agnostics get pity and atheists get anger. I don't like either reaction.
DP -
I don’t think that is the reason from my experience with agnostics. It seems to be that for some people, intellectual honesty is better expressed through agnosticism - metaphysical beliefs cannot be proven or disproven through science. Certitude is foolish without evidence.
Very little in life is black and white. There are always different viewing lenses for understanding reality. Agnosticism more fully allows for lack of certitude in which to explore different aspects of reality.
I don’t feel pity for agnostics or atheists - everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
Yet I wager that all the believers here would say with certitude and intellectual honesty that they do not believe in fairies and goblins, who are supernatural beings, like God in the sense that you can't see them. Also, some people (adults, in the case of fairies and goblins) don't believe in them. Thus, agnosticism is not good if it, as pp suggests, allows for exploring "different aspects of reality".
Not sure I follow your reasoning but agree that most religious people are unlikely to also believe in leprechauns/ fairies/ goblins etc.
Examples of Areas where I thought agnostics may be open to alternative metaphysical explanations are:
- seemingly Miraculous recoveries (many medical doctors and nurses have experienced inexplicable recoveries of patients with extremely poor prognoses following their families or faith communities praying for them).
- near death experiences where people who do technically die physically for some period of time. They often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet) - past life memories usually by children who remember details Of lives from historical periods where they could not have possibly
Known about.
I don’t know but that is my impression - not knowing opening up different possibilities.
Interestingly, Buddhists often recommend a mental state of not knowing as being essential to developing mindfulness. My art teacher recommends it for creating meaningful art.
This is just an effect of the lack of oxygen on the brain. If souls existed and were even temporarily "outside" of the body, they wouldn't just hover in place. They would go zooming off at over 60,000 mph as the earth continued in its orbit around the sun as souls would no longer be bound to the physical laws of the universe.
LOL. So by your reckoning, a soul has no mass and is therefore not affected by gravity. But it is affected by the other physical laws of motion? Pick a lane.
I understand complex thought may be difficult for some. The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph.
Thanks for demonstrating why science and religion shouldn’t mix.
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of complex thought.
My complex thought is just fine, thanks. As is my grasp on reality and physics.
You are confusing “complex thought” with all-out nuttery.
I'm the PP. Not nutty. I'll try to keep it simple for you to understand. This is in reference to the claim that NDEs are an example of, "they often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet)"
If souls are real, there are two outcomes:
1) - souls exist beyond the physical laws of the universe. They are not tied to the same rules that govern things like gravity, or the strong or weak nuclear forces. If the soul isn’t affected by these laws, it wouldn’t stay hovering around because the Earth itself is constantly moving through space. As the Earth continues its orbit and travels through space, the soul wouldn't be confined to the Earth's position or motion. So, if the soul isn't bound by physics, it wouldn't remain in place. Since the Earth moves around 67,000 mph through space, it would continue on.
2) - souls are bound to the physical laws of the universe. That is how they are able to move around like Patrick Swayze in Ghost and the typical Hollywood viewpoint. However, if they are bound to natural laws of the universe, that would be measurable or detectable. No credible study has ever found evidence. Personally, if I were a ghost, and I had been around for a couple thousand years stuck in limbo, I would make my way to a particle accelerator and impact the results in a way to encode a message indicating that I still existed. Given the billions of people that have lived since the dawn of humanity (even if limited to the shortened biblical timeline), and the potential for "ghosts" to be lingering around, somewhere someplace one of them would have found a way to communicate their existence.
Thus, claims by those who have an NDE that they observed their bodies are more likely an artifact of the brain responding to lack of oxygen than an awe inspiring inferential piece of evidence that souls are real.
Your entire lengthy and silly post is based on a prepositional logical fallacy
“ if souls exist”
You don’t get to use that sentence in logic until you prove they do. That’s how logic works.That’s why PP is calling it nuttery.
Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
No, most posters here across all religions and atheists have very little interesting content to share.
Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
No, most posters here across all religions and atheists have very little interesting content to share.
First off, not an organized religion fan. But this forum has made me think about what is really out there. I believe there is a superior force and intelligent design. None of this was developed on its own. But is God an old man with grey hair sitting on a throne? Not sure. Maybe it is really a spirit and Jesus was created as a man or else people would not have become believers. And the Bible line that if you do not believe in eternal life, there is no sense in Christianity? I disagree. Aren't some of the morals and described way to live worth something. And what about Heaven? Is there someday going to be some pot luck in the sky where I am going to sit with deceased relatives like old times? Not quite there with that.
Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.
The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.
Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.
Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.
Way to underscore PP’s point
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.
Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?
PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.
Athiests are not people who are certain that there is no God. They are people who do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.
Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.
What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?
Merriam Webster has this useful context under its definition of atheist:
"How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god."
I get the impression that a lot of atheists on this forum are actually agnostic.
No, they are mostly atheists.
AKA they are as certain about the existence of various gods as they are about fairies and leprechauns.
Do we go around saying we are Santa agnostic? No.
Except I think most agnostics acknowledge there is a difference between deities and fairies/leprechauns/Santa. Only self-described atheists insist on pretending all these things are equal for the sake of a tired argument.
They are all manufactured characters so...they are the same thing wrt "existence".
Dieties and fairies/leprechauns/Santa aren't all equal, but they are all supernatural. Both adults and children believe in Deities (God). Only children believe in fairies/leprechauns/Santa. Adults no longer believe in fairies/leprechauns/Santa. They think they're silly and childish, but many adults still believe in God. They take God very seriously.
Right. They are all figments of their imagination.
Just last night, I saw a short, (1:57 min) George Carlin video on religion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoYyiNRtMEE . In it, he says something like "There's a man in the sky, who will punish you in a fiery pit for eternity if you disobey any of the 10 things he told you not to do - but he loves you." It's priceless.
Another atheist comedian gets Christianity wrong. Not a surprise.
That short video about god https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoYyiNRtMEE is not wrong. it's so right. Christians do actually believe that "there's a man in the sky, who will punish you in a fiery pit for eternity if you disobey any of the 10 things he told you not to do - but he loves you." That's certainly what I learned when I was a Christian - not in those words, of course, but that was the message: "Be good or burn in hell forever!"
I can categorically say that as a Christian, I don’t believe that. Here is what I believe
1. There is no gender in the spirit
2. God is love, light and transcends time. space and place.
3. God shows love and mercy to all.
4. God knows the inner thoughts of all and knows our motivations.
5. Any thought or action that we carry out that is motivated by selfless love is of God and therefore transcends time and place and will endure after our physical bodies pass awY.
6. Everything in this life shall pass but God’s love and mercy endures forever
7. There are many paths to God and there is room for all of us.
You have the same problem that most believers do, that you only accept your interpretation of religion and ignore reality.
And you seem to have the same problem that many other atheists have, which is that you ignore acknowledge progressive/open religious theology, because they're not the loud fundamentalists you see on TV.
I'm agnostic. I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran (which is super conservative; women can't be clergy; lots of focus on sin; they only pray with other Missouri Synod Lutherans because everyone else is doing it wrong; etc) and for a long time I was angry about all religion. Understandably, I think. But then I grew up and saw that even within Lutheranism, there are more open, accepting denominations (ELCA Lutherans). I'm not going to go out and join an ELCA Lutheran church or start identifying as Christian again, but I recognize that my childhood experience is not representative of all Christian belief and certainly not of all religious belief generally. I don't like when people make assumptions about my beliefs as an agnostic, so of course religious people (especially religious people like PP whose beliefs are so different from the stereotype of a Christian) wouldn't like it either, and I'd rather just take those people at their word about their beliefs than argue with them about other Christians.
Thank you!
I'm the PP. I'm not ignoring open religious theology. I'm pointing out that your "open" thinking goes against the organized religion since they have their own set of rules that believers are supposed to follow. When you have to make up your rules to fit your views, why adhere to any belief system?
Thank you for your question.
I don’t feel like I need to make up rules to fit my views. My faith tradition encourages individual members to use reason and think about what makes sense to them. It also advocates for inclusive love and anyone is welcome.
My church community has been supportive and loving while giving me space to just be myself. I don’t feel any pressure to interpret the Bible any particular way or to be someone who I am not. I attend Bible study regularly: interpretations of scriptures vary greatly but generally are non literal.
I feel a warm sense of community and i deeply enjoy the sacred music. It just works for me and I believe that there is a spiritual home for everyone - different faith traditions (or collectives of like-minded people).
There are many scientists in my church - that so important to me - for faith and science to be seen as being in dialogue rather than in conflict necessarily. They offer many social justice related volunteer opportunities, which is also important to me.
It is definitely not for everyone and I respect that.
By the way my views are rooted in sacred text and I did not make them up out of thin air. As mentioned earlier, my faith tradition tends to be non literal and allow for personal interpretation of scriptures.
1. There is no gender in the spirit (Galatians 3:28)
2. God is love, light and transcends time. space and place.
[God is love' (1 Jn 4:8b, 4:16b); 'God is light' (1 Jn 1:5; Jn 9:5); and 'God is life' (1 Jn 1:2; Jn 14:6)]
3. God shows love and mercy to all.
(Ephesians 2:4-5 ; Isaiah 30:18; Lamentations 3:22-23; Psalm 25:10; James 3:17)
4. God knows the inner thoughts of all and knows our motivations.
(Jeremiah 17:10; 1 Chronicles 28:9)
5. Any thought or action that we carry out that is motivated by selfless love is of God and therefore transcends time and place and will endure after our physical bodies pass away.
(1 Corinthians 13:4-7; 1 Corinthians 13:13; John 15:12; 1; John 4:8; Philippians 2:4
6. Everything in this life shall pass but God’s love and mercy endures forever
(Psalm 136:26; John 2:17; Mathew 24:35; Isaiah 40:8)
7. There are many paths to God and there is room for all of us.
(Psalm 25:10; Proverbs 3:6; John 14:2)
I don't remember scripture as well as you to cite, so I'm going to use an analogy.
Think of a garbage dump. Within it, a flowering plant has taken hold and blossomed. You have zoomed in on the beauty of this flower and hold your attention there. However, when you zoom back out and see the entirety, it's all still a big pile of trash.
I can see why you might think that. Humans have certainly made many messes on our astonishing planet .
But if you keep zooming back into space Scientists widely agree that seeing Earth from space is a breathtaking and awe-inspiring sight. It is often described as "beautiful" due to the vibrant azure color of the planet, the playful patterns of clouds, and the stark contrast against the blackness of space. This provides a distinctive perspective on our planet's fragility and interconnectedness, often leading to a profound shift in perspective known as the "overview effect."
"Blue Marble":
The iconic image of Earth from space, often called the "Blue Marble," captures the striking blue hue of our planet, which is primarily due to the reflection of light from the oceans.
Overview Effect:
Many astronauts report experiencing a profound emotional shift upon seeing Earth from space, realizing the interconnectedness of all life on the planet and the need for global stewardship. Researchers have characterized the effect as "a state of awe with self-transcendent qualities, precipitated by a particularly striking visual stimulus". The most prominent common aspects of personally experiencing the Earth from space are appreciation and perception of beauty, unexpected and even overwhelming emotion, and an increased sense of connection to other people and the Earth as a whole.
It sounds very similar to many religious experiences where the everyday mundane illusions of separation from each other and God start to dissipate.
What is your point?
Thank you for asking. I thought it was clear.
I agree with PP about perspective being important. I extended his or her analogy for zooming out further from a flower to a trash heap. When we zoom out far enough into space then we arrive back at a view of beauty and interconnectedness.
Yes humans are good at using our smarts for destructive and short sighted gains. There is plenty of work for us all to do to help mitigate climate change, reduce cycles of poverty, avert wars, and take up other efforts to protect our planet and each other. However when the focus goes further out we can see how magnificent, unique, and woven together life here on Earth is.
Further, the overview effect described by many scientists sounds very similar in essence to many religious experiences where everyday mundanities fade away and a deep feeling of peace and unity takes hold.
I think you missed the overall point which was religion is trash. It had nothing to do with the overall planet or trash generally. It doesn't matter if you find pieces that are salvageable in a belief system, on the whole, all of it is garbage.
This clearly illustrates that one person’s trash is another person’s treasure.
Right --- and supposedly, "God" made us this way
And since he knows your thoughts and he knows what is going to happen, its all part of his mysterious plan.
I personally believe that the divine plan is loving, creative and interactive every step of the way. We have free will.
But I agree the divine plan seems mysterious and the value of seeking heavenly treasures is very hard to quantify.
Matthew 6:19-20: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal"
Your bible verse is another good example of why I left christianity. It exemplifies a worldview that is completely antithetical to what I believe about what we should be doing with our time in THIS WORLD (the only lifetime we are sure we are going to get), and that is to be loving, kind, accepting, generous, etc. However, the worldview that this verse espouses destroys some christians' abilities to do what is loving and kind in this world, in favor of following someone there is no proof exists other than a book, and that leads to so much harm. Ask me how I know. And also, if anyone really really wants to understand the extent of the harm done by christians that actually follow this book (the Bible), I can point you to so many websites about religious trauma, families that are destroyed through the practice of shunning, therapists that have had to learn about religious trauma to help suicidal people that were kicked out of their families for being gay, etc. I have a growing list of resources that would show anyone the massive scale of the insidious harm of fundamentalist christianity. The people perpetrating this abuse and harm and very very good christians. They are just horrible human beings.
I agree that Christianity's focus on the hereafter often distracts from this life/this world. It's one of the many reasons I left Christianity as well. I think the Christian argument would be that the way to "store up treasures in heaven" is to do good on Earth, but I just don't see that play out that way among most Christians.