Everyday I move a little closer to Agnosticism

[Grouch]

But I'm still to irrational to become an atheist.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Grouch

But I'm still to irrational to become an atheist.

[jimeigh]

Originally Posted by Grouch

But I'm still to irrational to become an atheist.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Grouch

But I'm still to irrational to become an atheist.

Words are too confusing.

I conisder myself both agnostic and atheist.


I do not belive in a god, as there is no plausible proof, but I also think knowledge of such things isn't currently possible.

[Simius]

When did your transition start, Grouch? I kind of noticed it when you made a thread about forgeries in the gospels... although I imagine you had been moving away from theism long before that.

Originally Posted by Kytro

Words are too confusing.

I conisder myself both agnostic and atheist.


I do not belive in a god, as there is no plausible proof, but I also think knowledge of such things isn't currently possible.

Personally, I think knowledge about whether or not the gods exist isn't possible because the gods don't exist.

[up|dn]

This is interesting to me. Do you feel that your study of history and the general direction of the historical view (ie: a critical one) has played a big part?

For me it definately has. Once you start piecing together the historical aspects of Christianity, all the mythical stuff gets put aside, and soon there's nothing left as far as faith goes.

[Grouch]

I've always more or less based my perception and understanding of Christianity with a more or less historical standpoint.

I've also never thought that Christianity was the one true religion. It just never made sense to me to make that claim for a variety of reasons. The Hebrew God was originally a tribal God and they accepted the existence of other Gods, it shares countless similarities to other religions and it just doesn’t make much sense for an all powerful God to limit himself to a single religion when it automatically alienates a vast majority of his creation.

This isn't to say I don't think the bible has some truth to it. But its truthyness is relative. I think that the person the biblical character of Jesus was based on is real. Many of those who argue against any historical Jesus seem to often ignore the context of his supposed existence and the context in which the few secular writings even mentioning him are also in. All these writings treat him as a real person, not a myth or imaginary character.

My problem is mostly with the bible, and if you have a problem with the bible is seems to follow that you have a problem with Christianity. I don't think the bible is the divine word of God by any means. I don't think the bible is consistent in many of its spiritual teachings. Many attempts to reconcile these problems are so convoluted and difficult to understand that it harkens back to convoluted Jewish laws at the time of Christ, the whole reason why he was supposed to be here.

Basically I think my belief breaks down to a belief that there is some sort of underlying historical truth and it is somewhere in the bible and other extra biblical writings. But is it defiantly not what is sold as modern Christianity.

I’m pretty much just babbling off the top of my head though so it might not make much sense.

[up|dn]

Originally Posted by Grouch

I've always more or less based my perception and understanding of Christianity with a more or less historical standpoint.

I've also never thought that Christianity was the one true religion. It just never made sense to me to make that claim for a variety of reasons. The Hebrew God was originally a tribal God and they accepted the existence of other Gods, it shares countless similarities to other religions and it just doesn’t make much sense for an all powerful God to limit himself to a single religion when it automatically alienates a vast majority of his creation.

This isn't to say I don't think the bible has some truth to it. But its truthyness is relative. I think that the person the biblical character of Jesus was based on is real. Many of those who argue against any historical Jesus seem to often ignore the context of his supposed existence and the context in which the few secular writings even mentioning him are also in. All these writings treat him as a real person, not a myth or imaginary character.

My problem is mostly with the bible, and if you have a problem with the bible is seems to follow that you have a problem with Christianity. I don't think the bible is the divine word of God by any means. I don't think the bible is consistent in many of its spiritual teachings. Many attempts to reconcile these problems are so convoluted and difficult to understand that it harkens back to convoluted Jewish laws at the time of Christ, the whole reason why he was supposed to be here.

Basically I think my belief breaks down to a belief that there is some sort of underlying historical truth and it is somewhere in the bible and other extra biblical writings. But is it defiantly not what is sold as modern Christianity.

I’m pretty much just babbling off the top of my head though so it might not make much sense.

I'm pretty sure I know how you feel. It's hard to be a liberal Christian when Christianity has been hijacked by the fundamentalists and [neo]conservatives. A lot of liberal Christian theology takes for granted that the Bible is just a product of its age, and that it isn't "God's Word", but the words of men about God. Unfortunately, this is blasphemy to the conservative theologians, who see this as nothing but atheism-in-disguise.

On the other hand, maybe the conservatives are right. Apologetically clinging to ancient writings that contain within them a way of looking at the world that we simply can't relate to does seem silly. I'm not sure if you've heard of Rudolph Bultmann, but he's "well-known" for his project of demytholization: a stripping away of the mythical aspects to get back at what he sees as the root of Christianity. Unfortunately, I think what you have then isn't really religion, but philosophy.

Long story short, I'm not sure if one can even rightly call themselves a Christian anymore these days without all of the literal beliefs that come with it. I still attend church, but I don't consider myself a Christian.

[redwards]

Originally Posted by Grouch

I've always more or less based my perception and understanding of Christianity with a more or less historical standpoint.

I've also never thought that Christianity was the one true religion. It just never made sense to me to make that claim for a variety of reasons. The Hebrew God was originally a tribal God and they accepted the existence of other Gods, it shares countless similarities to other religions and it just doesn’t make much sense for an all powerful God to limit himself to a single religion when it automatically alienates a vast majority of his creation.

This isn't to say I don't think the bible has some truth to it. But its truthyness is relative. I think that the person the biblical character of Jesus was based on is real. Many of those who argue against any historical Jesus seem to often ignore the context of his supposed existence and the context in which the few secular writings even mentioning him are also in. All these writings treat him as a real person, not a myth or imaginary character.

My problem is mostly with the bible, and if you have a problem with the bible is seems to follow that you have a problem with Christianity. I don't think the bible is the divine word of God by any means. I don't think the bible is consistent in many of its spiritual teachings. Many attempts to reconcile these problems are so convoluted and difficult to understand that it harkens back to convoluted Jewish laws at the time of Christ, the whole reason why he was supposed to be here.

Basically I think my belief breaks down to a belief that there is some sort of underlying historical truth and it is somewhere in the bible and other extra biblical writings. But is it defiantly not what is sold as modern Christianity.

I’m pretty much just babbling off the top of my head though so it might not make much sense.

[SVTman]

i believe that the religion of Christianity has taken to much from the power that you ca find in bible. you may not believe becuase you have never seen it work but why would it work for you if you don't even believe that it will. its called faith and in order to believe anything even athiesm you have to have faith that what you think is true. this is how it works and how it has always worked.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by SVTman

i believe that the religion of Christianity has taken to much from the power that you ca find in bible. you may not believe becuase you have never seen it work but why would it work for you if you don't even believe that it will. its called faith and in order to believe anything even athiesm you have to have faith that what you think is true. this is how it works and how it has always worked.

um, atheism is devoid of religion and faith. it's the definition of the word.

also the bible was written after jesus, based on stories passed down by word of mouth. there is no way that these stories passed down from one person to the next to the next never got tangled around with parts left out and new parts added and general habdashery. did you ever play telephone in a big group of kids when you were younger. one person would say one sentence, and the next kid would repeat it to the next and so forth and so on? it never would come back to the first person even remotely the same. same principal here. the bible was written on hearsay passed down orally hundreds of years and to take it word for word is just stupid.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

um, atheism is devoid of religion and faith. it's the definition of the word.

Some people will never see it that way.

[motivez]

Atheists believe there is no God. They can't prove it, but believe it anyway.. so it's a faith just like the people who believe there is a God and can't prove it.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by motivez

Atheists believe there is no God. They can't prove it, but believe it anyway.. so it's a faith just like the people who believe there is a God and can't prove it.

Faith is a belief that is not based on proof.

There is no proof of gods existence so it takes no faith to not believe in god.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Faith is a belief that is not based on proof.

There is no proof of gods existence so it takes no faith to not believe in god.

They say "There is no God" as a statement of fact. It's a belief, which requires faith that it's a correct one in the face of zero evidence supporting it.

[jimeigh]

Originally Posted by motivez

Atheists believe there is no God.

theism - the belief in a god(s)

atheism - without the belief in a god(s)

thats it. there is no "faith" required to not believe in something. for example, when you are born, you are an atheist, because you have not affirmed a belief in god.

it is nothing but the mere absence of theism. a lack of a belief.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by motivez

Atheists believe there is no God. They can't prove it, but believe it anyway.. so it's a faith just like the people who believe there is a God and can't prove it.

While I'd rather not degrade this thread into a semantics debate, I can invariably say that the colloquial understanding of "atheism" does not align with its etymology, denotation, nor its usage amongst those who identify themselves as atheists. The common understanding is also not how theologians understand and use the word either.

That's not to say that you're necessarily wrong. After all, you are merely using the word as it is commonly used. But you are wrong to say that anyone else is wrong for going by their equally, if not more, valuable understanding of the word.


For what it's worth, atheism is derived from the Greek word atheos which means godless, or as Jimeigh said, "without gods." The word theism came a century later to describe those that were not atheists. The prefix "a" also literally means "without."

While we're on the subject, "agnostic" seems to be more of an epistemological position than a theological one.


Again, though, I'm pretty sure that we all understand what the other person is trying to say. And rather than nitpicking semantics, we get things to run more swiftly if we just qualify our statements or define the terms as we recognize them.

[SVTman]

Originally Posted by motivez

Atheists believe there is no God. They can't prove it, but believe it anyway.. so it's a faith just like the people who believe there is a God and can't prove it.

i agree with you completely

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by SVTman

i agree with you completely

and as just shown below repeatedly, you both are wrong.

and i see you ignored my comments on the bible.