Bluelight

Thread: The Rise of the Religious Left

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 66 of 66
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #51
    There's hypocrites everywhere including religion, but that's really neither here nor there. A true christian that believes in god isn't agnostic. If I told my friend that's christian that he's also agnostic he'd think I was crazy, and rightfully so. I don't really know why I'm still arguing this anyways tho because I personally don't really give a fuck what people believe. I guess it just irks me when people want to assign their own incorrect meanings to things that are already well established and easily studied.

    And I'm not christian btw. Just been using that as an example.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #52
    Moderator
    Australia & Asia Drug Discussion
    drug_mentor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    7,538
    Quote Originally Posted by mal3volent View Post
    a- "without"
    gnostic "knowledge"
    Quote Originally Posted by mal3volent View Post
    I guess i will try to say this again. A-gnosticism is a question of knowledge. If someone asks you if you believe in god, and you answer them by saying you are agnostic...you are not answering their question.
    You are conflating the etymology of a word and its definition. Google dictionary gives the following result for the definition of agnostic:
    "noun
    1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
    adjective
    1. relating to agnostics or agnosticism."

    Agnosticism is a belief about whether one can know if God exists or not. Thus, your claim that "everyone is agnostic" is plainly false. Some people positively believe that you can know whether God exists or not, and those people are not agnostic.

    Strictly speaking, you are correct that if someone asks whether you believe in God and you respond by saying you are agnostic, then you have not explicitly answered their question. However, it is implausible to claim that this response does not give a pragmatic (in the linguistic sense) answer to the question via conversational implicature. The basic idea behind pragmatic implicature is that some things are suggested by an utterance even though they are not logically implied by the utterance. If I say 'I am agnostic' when someone asks me if I believe in God, the implicature seems to be something like, 'I don't have a strong view either way'. In other words, by responding that one is agnostic, one is implicitly giving an answer to the question.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #53
    /\ Exactly, couldn't have put it better. And let's not forget there's more than one type of agnosticism.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #54
    Quote Originally Posted by drug_mentor View Post
    You are conflating the etymology of a word and its definition. Google dictionary gives the following result for the definition of agnostic:
    "noun
    1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
    adjective
    1. relating to agnostics or agnosticism."

    Agnosticism is a belief about whether one can know if God exists or not. Thus, your claim that "everyone is agnostic" is plainly false. Some people positively believe that you can know whether God exists or not, and those people are not agnostic.

    Strictly speaking, you are correct that if someone asks whether you believe in God and you respond by saying you are agnostic, then you have not explicitly answered their question. However, it is implausible to claim that this response does not give a pragmatic (in the linguistic sense) answer to the question via conversational implicature. The basic idea behind pragmatic implicature is that some things are suggested by an utterance even though they are not logically implied by the utterance. If I say 'I am agnostic' when someone asks me if I believe in God, the implicature seems to be something like, 'I don't have a strong view either way'. In other words, by responding that one is agnostic, one is implicitly giving an answer to the question.
    Exactly. Far as I'm concerned, the point of language is communication. And excessively strict adherence to the perceived meaning of a word or expression against the generally accepted meaning is making communication harder not easier. The purpose of defining words is to reduce ambiguity and make communication clearer. Being excessively pedantic in this way accomplishes the reverse. Which is why I avoid getting involved in arguments about word meaning. The point is communication. Provided I am understood and understand that's all that matters.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #55
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #56
    Types of Agnosticism

    Strong Agnosticism:

    This is the view (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism or epistemological agnosticism) that the question of the existence or non-existence of God or gods is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience.

    Mild Agnosticism:

    This is the view (also called weak agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, or temporal agnosticism) that the existence or non-existence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until more evidence becomes available.

    Pragmatic Agnosticism:


    This is the view that there is no proof of either the existence or non-existence of God or gods.

    Apathetic Agnosticism:

    This is the view that there is no proof of either the existence or non-existence of God or gods, but since any God or gods that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.

    Agnostic Theism:

    This is the view (also called religious agnosticism) of those who do not claim to know of the existence of God or gods, but still believe in such an existence.

    Agnostic Atheism:

    This is the view of those who claim not to know of the existence or non-existence of God or gods, but do not believe in them.

    Ignosticism:

    This is the view that a coherent definition of "God" must be put forward before the question of the existence or non-existence of God can even be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the Non-Cognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless or empirically untestable. A. J. Ayer, Theodore Drange and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

    https://www.philosophybasics.com/bra...nosticism.html
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #57
    Moderator
    Sports & Gaming
    mal3volent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,102
    Quote Originally Posted by JessFR View Post
    Exactly. Far as I'm concerned, the point of language is communication. And excessively strict adherence to the perceived meaning of a word or expression against the generally accepted meaning is making communication harder not easier. The purpose of defining words is to reduce ambiguity and make communication clearer. Being excessively pedantic in this way accomplishes the reverse. Which is why I avoid getting involved in arguments about word meaning. The point is communication. Provided I am understood and understand that's all that matters.
    i also agree with this.

    Drug_Mentor probably got me when he pointed out that being agnostic is a belief that one can know the existence of god. However false that belief is doesn't change the fact that some may actually believe it.

    Nutty, you are incorrect though when you say, "a true Christian who believes in god is not agnostic". There are plenty who find their faith to be sufficient. They do not need to foolishly believe that their faith can be materially proven.

    We should all probably get back to discussing the religious left. I will quote my last on topic comment. Didn't mean to derail your thread CFC... my apologies

    I get the perception of the peaceful altruistic Christian that is nice to everyone...accepts everyone...all that. But a lot of times they don't actually mean that. What they mean is...yes, your lifestyle is a sin...but we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God. They don't mean "I think your sexuality is perfectly a-okay and just as valid as mine". If they do believe that, then they believe it despite the holy text they claim and the entire culture built around it.

    Bringing all that back around to the actual topic... I personally can't stand people who try to have it both ways. Don't claim to be a liberal progressive on social issues then also try to claim the Bible or the Qur'an.

    But that's just me.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #58
    Maybe what you're talking about is agnostic theism, but christians claim that god exists. I mean why would you believe in something if you didn't think it existed in the first place? That's just stupid.
    Last edited by nuttynutskin; 27-05-2018 at 02:09.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #59
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    Non-Electronic Music Discussion
    swilow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shielding off the weakening beams of salvation shining upon the mournful gloom of Earth
    Posts
    29,032
    Christians do not know god exists, they simply believe it does. I part ways with anyone claiming certainty though I am pretty certain Christianity and religion are man made garbage.

    No one can know the creator because it's absence from physical reality at all levels suggest it doesn't want to be known or cannot be known. Or there isn't anything to know.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #60
    Moderator
    Sports & Gaming
    mal3volent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,102
    Quote Originally Posted by nuttynutskin View Post
    Maybe what you're talking about is agnostic theism, but christians claim that god exists. I mean why would you believe in something if you didn't think it existed in the first place? That's just stupid.
    yeah, I mean exactly what you have under agnostic theism. They believe god exists, but don't claim that such a belief could ever be proven.

    Michael Eric Dyson is probably the best example of the type of religious lefty I dislike. There's a good video of a debate with him in it in the video thread.
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #61
    Quote Originally Posted by swilow View Post
    Christians do not know god exists, they simply believe it does. I part ways with anyone claiming certainty though I am pretty certain Christianity and religion are man made garbage.

    No one can know the creator because it's absence from physical reality at all levels suggest it doesn't want to be known or cannot be known. Or there isn't anything to know.
    That's your opinion/belief. Plenty of other people's beliefs are different. To me know/believe is just semantics. And why would you part ways with someone based on their own personal beliefs? If someone claimed to know or have a relationship with god then why would that stop you from being friends with them if they were good people and didn't shove their beliefs down other peoples throats? I see no reason, and for me religion and spirituality are something that should be personal.
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #62
    Moderator
    Sports & Gaming
    mal3volent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,102
    Quote Originally Posted by nuttynutskin View Post
    That's your opinion/belief. Plenty of other people's beliefs are different. To me know/believe is just semantics. And why would you part ways with someone based on their own personal beliefs? If someone claimed to know or have a relationship with god then why would that stop you from being friends with them if they were good people and didn't shove their beliefs down other peoples throats? I see no reason, and for me religion and spirituality are something that should be personal.
    I don't think swilow was saying that he wouldn't be friends with any Christian. I think he was saying that he'd rather not converse with someone who is so illogical that they would claim to be certain of something that cannot be proven. I've talked to plenty of super religious people who would never claim that their beliefs could be proven. That's the whole idea of faith in the first place...
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #63
    Oh, well that's the way I read it. Probably just repeating myself, but I choose to judge people on their own merit. To me religion/spirituality should be personal. I don't think religion/spirituality is something you can really put under a microscope. Either way, I could just as easily be friends with a christian as an atheist as long as they're cool with me and respect that I may or may not share their beliefs. I just don't like people who shove their beliefs down other's throats on either side.
    Last edited by nuttynutskin; 28-05-2018 at 02:23.
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #64
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    Non-Electronic Music Discussion
    swilow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shielding off the weakening beams of salvation shining upon the mournful gloom of Earth
    Posts
    29,032
    ^Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by nuttynutskin View Post
    That's your opinion/belief. Plenty of other people's beliefs are different. To me know/believe is just semantics. And why would you part ways with someone based on their own personal beliefs? If someone claimed to know or have a relationship with god then why would that stop you from being friends with them if they were good people and didn't shove their beliefs down other peoples throats? I see no reason, and for me religion and spirituality are something that should be personal.
    By part ways, I mean "vehemently disagree". I've got friends and family that are religious. Just as I don't force my non-belief on them, I expect the same.

    So i agree that religion should be personal. It shouldn't be forced upon others or used to broadly guide society. I part ways with religion when I as an atheist am forced to encounter it.
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. Collapse Details
     
    #65
    Ok, I think I understand what you're saying better.

    I still maintain that christians aren't agnostics tho. But I think that's an argument that will never be resolved.
    Reply With Quote
     

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #66
    Bluelighter RDP89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Illinois,U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,368
    Quote Originally Posted by JessFR View Post
    Mmm, it kinda did get thrown out. Not right away but as a result. If nothing else it got reinterpreted. Even if you discount the he who is without sin stuff in john 7:53, Jesus said a lot of things that largely contradicted established interpretation of the old testament.
    Ok, but it's still a part of their holy book, which is supposed to be the word of God. Why would Jesus contradict the words of his father, who is also him? Oh yeah, because it's all made up nonsense which is why I don't even know why I argue over it.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •